Albert Kipruto Metto & another v William Ayabei Chemitei & 4 others [2016] KEELC 677 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Eldoret Environment and Land Court dismissed grandsons' attempt to block land sale because they lacked letters of administration for their deceased grandfather's estate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case with probability of success
Not established - there is an unappealed decree of the Chief Magistrate's Court declaring ownership in favour of the defendants, and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated administrator status to assert their deceased grandfather's right.
The court noted a subsisting decree in Eldoret CMCC No. 744 of 2008 declaring the land to belong to the defendants, which the plaintiffs never sought to set aside on review or appeal. The right asserted accrued to the deceased grandfather, and only his administrator could enforce it on proof of his right. The plaintiffs also failed to enjoin the farm managers they accuse of fraud. Hence no prima facie case.
Irreparable loss and balance of convenience
No irreparable loss: the plaintiffs were evicted under a valid court order and can be compensated in damages; balance of convenience favours the registered proprietors in occupation.
The court held that since the eviction flowed from a valid court order, any loss suffered by the plaintiffs, if they ultimately succeed, is compensable in damages. Reinstating them onto the land would infringe the defendants' registered proprietary rights. As the plaintiffs are currently not in occupation, the balance of convenience favours refusal of the injunction.
Whether the plaintiffs were the subjects of the lower court eviction order
Uncertain - the deceased grandfather was known as Kimeto Arap Mbulwa, not Kipkemboi Arap Mulwa, so it is not clear the plaintiffs' grandfather was the defendant in the lower court case.
The defendants asserted that the 2nd plaintiff was the judgment debtor in CMCC No. 744 of 2008. The court observed that the plaintiffs' grandfather was known as Kimeto Arap Mbulwa and not Kipkemboi Arap Mulwa, so the identification was not clear. Even so, the lower court had determined ownership, and the proper remedy for aggrieved non-served occupants was review or appeal as interested parties.
Legal principles established
#- A right accruing to a deceased person can only be asserted or enforced through the administrator of the estate, upon proof of the deceased's right in the property.
- A party evicted pursuant to a valid court order who did not participate in that case should pursue review or appeal as an interested party rather than litigate afresh.
- Fraud alleged against persons who are not parties to the suit cannot be established unless those persons are enjoined.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for temporary injunction is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land matters (Environment and Land Court); specific provision not stated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Albert Kipruto Metto & another v William Ayabei Chemitei & 4 others [2016] KEELC 677 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Eldoret High Court (ELC) suit - number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/677/eng@2016-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.