Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 5 of 2018 (arising from Marimanti ELC Case No. 6 of 2013)· [2018] KEELC 271 (KLR)

Peter Ndirangu Muchemi v Asiemo Ndatho Marenge [2018] KEELC 271 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 December 2018
3,622 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed you can sue over land in an adjudication area if you first get the adjudication officer's written consent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Chuka against a decision of Hon. Mesa L. N, SRM, delivered at Marimanti on 10th May 2018, striking out the appellant's plaint in a boundary dispute over land parcel No. 543 Chiakariga 'A' Adjudication Section. The plaint dated 24th October 2013 sought determination of the actual boundary with the defendant's land, an order restricting the defendant to his land, and a permanent mandatory injunction against trespass. A consent order of 19th March 2015 had directed the Officer in charge of Chiakariga Adjudication Section to visit the locus and fix the boundaries, but the exercise aborted when the defendant resisted it; the District Land and Settlement Officer reported that the defendant claimed approximately two acres, making it a land claim rather than a boundary issue. The magistrate struck out the plaint for want of jurisdiction. On appeal, the appellant argued that the requisite consent of the Land Adjudication Officer had been obtained under section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, that the consent order bound the parties, and that the suit was undefended. The court upheld all the appellant's grounds, holding that a party's resistance to boundary fixing does not transform a boundary dispute into a land claim. It set aside the lower court judgment and remitted the suit to Marimanti for hearing, directing that the District Land and Adjudication Officer fix the disputed boundaries with adequate security availed. It declined to enter judgment for the plaintiff for want of evidential basis, and awarded costs of the appeal only to the appellant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the lower court over land in an adjudication section

Holding

The court upheld the appellant's grounds and found the lower court erred in holding it had no jurisdiction, since the requisite consent of the adjudication officer had been obtained before filing suit

Reasoning

Sections 8 of the Land Consolidation Act (Cap 283) and 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284) prohibit instituting civil proceedings over land in adjudication areas without the written consent of the adjudication officer. Here, a consent dated 17th October 2013 from the Land Adjudication Officer, Tharaka District, was annexed, so the bar did not apply and the magistrate erred in downing tools.

p. 4
02

Effect of the DLASO report and the aborted boundary demarcation

Holding

The defendant's refusal to allow boundary fixing did not convert the boundary dispute into a land claim; the lower court's finding to the contrary was wrong

Reasoning

The District Land and Settlement Officer reported that the defendant resisted the demarcation by claiming approximately two acres, concluding it was a land claim, not a boundary issue. The judge disagreed, holding that a party's obstruction of the exercise cannot itself redefine the nature of the dispute. The consent order directing demarcation remained enforceable.

p. 5
03

Whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiff on appeal

Holding

The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the striking-out; the court declined to enter judgment for the plaintiff for want of evidential basis

Reasoning

Although the respondent filed no defence and no submissions, the appellate court could not, on the material before it, grant the substantive relief sought in the plaint, including a permanent mandatory injunction. The appropriate remedy was to remit the suit for hearing, with directions that the adjudication officer fix the boundaries under adequate security.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Resistance by a party to the fixing of boundaries does not transform a boundary dispute into a claim for land
  • Where the adjudication officer has granted consent under section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, there is no bar to filing a claim in court alleging interference with property

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment delivered by Hon. Mesa L. N, SRM, at Marimanti on 10th May, 2018 is set aside
  2. 2.The suit is remitted back to Marimanti Law Courts for hearing and determination
  3. 3.The lower court should order the District Land and Adjudication Officer, Chiakariga 'A' Adjudication Section to fix the disputed boundaries and also order that adequate security be availed to him on the day the said boundaries will be fixed
  4. 4.Costs for this appeal ONLY are awarded to the Appellant with costs of the proceedings in the lower court remaining at the judicial discretion of the lower court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Adjudication ActSection 30(1)
  • Land Consolidation ActSection 8
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11; Order 10 Rule 11
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159; Article 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (6)

  • Owners of Motor Vessels Lillian S -v- Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) KLR 1
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another -v- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others
    (2012) eKLR
  • Brooke Bond Liebig Ltd v Mallya
    [1975] EA 266
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another
    Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1997 [1998] eKLR
  • Nicholas Tukei versus Chepochepkatug Loyeruk & 2 others
    Kitale HCCC 90 of 2012 [2013] eKLR
  • Nilesh Premchand Mulji Shah & another t/a Ketan Emporium v M.D. Popat and others & another
    [2016] eKLR
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Marimanti
ELC Case No. 6 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction over decisions of subordinate courts in land matters (Environment and Land Court Act); appeal from striking out of plaint under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Peter Ndirangu Muchemi v Asiemo Ndatho Marenge [2018] KEELC 271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2018 (arising from Marimanti ELC Case No. 6 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/271/eng@2018-12-18

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