John K. Malembi v Trufosa Cheredi Mudembei & 2 others
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
#Key legal issues
#Validity of a transfer executed by a deceased person
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.
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.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the land dispute after establishment of the Environment and Land Court
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.
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.
Burden and standard of proof of fraud
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.
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.
Consideration of unpleaded issues and evaluation of evidence on a first appeal
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.
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.
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.The judgment of the High Court delivered on 17/11/2015 in Eldoret HCCC No. 248 of 2000 is set aside in entirety
- 2.The suit between the parties is transferred to the Environment and Land Court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter
- 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.
- Zainab Mwinyi v Saifudeen Abdulla Bhai & 1 other[2025] KECA 1309 (KLR)18 Jul 2025
- Kahungu v Wanyonyi & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 4 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4559 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4559 (KLR)16 Jun 2025applied
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.