Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 81 of 2016· [2019] KECA 126 (KLR)

John K. Malembi v Trufosa Cheredi Mudembei & 2 others

Court of Appeal
28 November 2019
4,325 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal voided a land transfer signed by a dead man and ruled the High Court had no jurisdiction over land disputes, sending the case to the Environment and Land Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant appealed against the judgment of Kimondo J in Eldoret HCCC No. 248 of 2000, in which the 1st respondent, widow of the late William Mudembei (original allottee of Land Parcel No. Kakamega/Mabusi/14 from the Settlement Fund Trustees), had successfully challenged the appellant's registration as proprietor in March 1998 for a consideration of Ksh. 5,400. The trial court restored title to the Settlement Fund Trustees with a direction that it be transferred to the deceased's estate, declined eviction, and restrained the appellant from dealing with the property. The appellant raised thirteen grounds, principally that fraud had not been proved, that his title was indefeasible, that the deceased had divested himself by selling to a third party, and that the judge erred on burden of proof and unpleaded issues. The Court of Appeal, as a first appellate court, re-assessed the evidence and found the trial judge had properly evaluated it, correctly applied the burden and standard of proof of fraud, and properly raised its own jurisdiction sua motu. The pivotal ground that succeeded was jurisdictional: the pivotal finding was that the instrument of transfer dated 13 July 1982 was executed by a person who had died on 25 April 1982 and was thus a nullity; but crucially the Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to determine the land dispute once the Environment and Land Court was established, and that the Chief Justice's Practice Directions could not confer jurisdiction. The appeal partially succeeded: the High Court judgment was set aside in entirety and the suit transferred to the Environment and Land Court, with each party bearing its own costs. The decision binds lower courts to the principle that practice directions cannot confer jurisdiction, which flows only from the Constitution or legislation.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of a transfer executed by a deceased person

Holding

The transfer of the suit property dated 13 July 1982, executed in the name of a person who died on 25 April 1982, was null and void and conferred no title on the appellant.

Reasoning

The instrument of transfer was dated and executed at Kitale on 13 July 1982, purporting to transfer the property from William Mudembei who had died on 25 April 1982. The Court held that a deceased person can neither execute an instrument nor transfer property, and that no such person could have appeared before the attesting witness. Such a document is void for lack of authority, power and competence.

p. 3
02

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the land dispute after establishment of the Environment and Land Court

Holding

The High Court lacked jurisdiction; the Environment and Land Court has original jurisdiction over title to land, and the Chief Justice's practice directions could not confer jurisdiction on the High Court.

Reasoning

The trial judge had relied on Practice Directions in Gazette Notice No. 5178 of 25 July 2014 and the transitional provision in Section 30 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The Court held that the Chief Justice could not direct the High Court to exercise jurisdiction it did not have; the transitional clause only allowed direction of pending matters in the hiatus before the ELC was operationalized. Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or legislation.

p. 5
03

Burden and standard of proof of fraud

Holding

The trial judge properly applied the burden and standard of proof in fraud, finding the allegations generalized and unproved; the appellant's ground on this issue failed.

Reasoning

The trial judge had found the allegations of fraud generalized and not proved to the required standard, noting that no handwriting expert was called and that the deceased was already dead when the consent application form was filled. The Court of Appeal found no misdirection in that assessment and rejected the ground that the evidentiary burden had been shifted to the appellant.

p. 4
04

Consideration of unpleaded issues and evaluation of evidence on a first appeal

Holding

The trial judge properly distilled the agreed issues, evaluated the evidence item by item and considered the historical circumstances; the grounds alleging failure in these respects had no merit.

Reasoning

The Court analyzed the trial judgment with precision and found the judge had captured the agreed issues and added the jurisdictional question, appraised the evidence and identified the relevant law per issue. The delving into the validity of the transfer was in the historical context of how the appellant acquired title, and the suo motu treatment of jurisdiction was proper since jurisdiction must be considered whether or not raised by parties.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Practice directions issued by the Chief Justice cannot confer jurisdiction on a court; jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation.
  • A court can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or written law and cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that conferred.
  • An instrument of transfer executed by a person who is dead is a nullity and confers no title.
  • On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal must re-analyze and re-assess the evidence and reach its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment of the High Court delivered on 17/11/2015 in Eldoret HCCC No. 248 of 2000 is set aside in entirety
  2. 2.The suit between the parties is transferred to the Environment and Land Court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter
  3. 3.Each party to bear his/its own costs
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
HCCC No. 248 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Act over an appeal from the High Court; the appeal turned on whether the High Court or the Environment and Land Court had original jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 30 of the Environment and Land Court Act.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John K. Malembi v Trufosa Cheredi Mudembei & 2 others", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/126/eng@2019-11-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.