Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEldoret HCCC (amended plaint dated 20.11.2007; number not stated in judgment)· [2018] KEELC 441 (KLR)

Jamin Kiombe Lidodo v Emily Jerono Kiombe & another (on behalf of Soy Land Disputes Tribunal and District Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu) [2018] KEELC 441 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 December 2018
AOA. Ombwayo
2,261 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Eldoret confirmed that a Land Disputes Tribunal award adopted by a Magistrate's court can only be challenged through statutory appeal or judicial review, not by filing a fresh suit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued by amended plaint claiming to be the registered proprietor of Moi's Bridge/Moi's Bridge Block 8 (Natwana ADC) 68, which he said he had pledged as bail security in Kitale Criminal Case No. 3385 of 1998 and which was thereafter lost. He complained that, without notice, the 1st defendant lodged a claim before the Soy Land Disputes Tribunal, which purportedly awarded her the land; the award was adopted as Eldoret CMCC Award No. 58 of 2002 and a decree registered on 7 May 2004. He sought declarations that the Tribunal's deliberations were illegal, null and void, a permanent injunction, and cancellation of the 1st defendant's registration. The 1st defendant denied the marriage and claimed she purchased the land in 1979, becoming first registered owner on 2 November 1995, and that the plaintiff fraudulently procured registration to himself while she was hospitalized in 1998; she counterclaimed for declarations of ownership, eviction and mesne profits. Parties proceeded by written submissions. The court framed the main issue as whether the plaint route lay to nullify the Tribunal's decision. It held that under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act an adopted award becomes a judgment of the Magistrate's court, challengeable only by appeal to the Appeals Committee, then the High Court, or by judicial review, which the plaintiff had not pursued; the court therefore declined to determine other issues. On the counterclaim, it declared the 1st defendant the registered and lawful owner, held the cancellation of her 1995 title null and void, ordered the plaintiff's eviction on 60 days' notice, and awarded the defendants costs and interest. The plaintiff's suit thus failed while the counterclaim succeeded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Tribunal's decision adopted as Eldoret CMCC Award No. 58 of 2002 can be challenged by way of plaint/declaration

Holding

No. The adopted award is a judgment of the Magistrate's court challengeable only by the statutory appeal route or judicial review, which the plaintiff did not pursue.

Reasoning

Section 8(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act provided an appeal to the Appeals Committee within 30 days, and thereafter to the High Court within 60 days on a point of law. The plaintiff did not use these procedures or judicial review to challenge the Tribunal's decision or its adoption. The court therefore declined to determine the other issues since there exists a valid, executed judgment of the Magistrate's court.

p. 3
02

Who is the lawful owner of the suit property on the counterclaim

Holding

The 1st defendant is the registered and lawful owner; the cancellation of her first registration title was null and void.

Reasoning

On the counterclaim the court found the 1st defendant to be the registered proprietor of the suit property and therefore entitled to possession. The eviction of the plaintiff was ordered, with 60 days' notice before eviction, and the plaintiff's claim was effectively defeated.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An award of a Land Disputes Tribunal adopted by the Magistrate's court becomes a judgment of that court and can only be challenged by appeal to the Appeals Committee, thereafter to the High Court on a point of law, or by judicial review.
  • Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, 1990 limited tribunals' jurisdiction to claims to occupy or work land, boundary disputes, and trespass.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the 1st defendant is the registered and lawful owner of the whole of Moi's Bridge/Moi's Bridge Block 8 (Natwana ADC) 68
  2. 2.Declaration that the cancellation of the 1st defendant's first registration title issued on 2nd November 1995 was without basis, null and void
  3. 3.Order directing eviction of the plaintiff, his servants and/or agents from the whole of the suit parcel
  4. 4.Costs of the suit and interest awarded to the defendants
  5. 5.Plaintiff to be given 60 days' notice before any eviction is done

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal ActSection 3(1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal ActSection 8(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Daudi Ngetich Kimibei Vs the Attorney General and Another
    Eldoret HCCC No. 55 of 1998
  • Munyui Kahuha Vs Ngang Kahuha
    Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2000
  • Asman Wepukhulu & Another Vs Francis Wakwabubi Biketi
    Civil Appeal No. 157 of 2001
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court (unspecified provision; suit instituted by plaint)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jamin Kiombe Lidodo v Emily Jerono Kiombe & another (on behalf of Soy Land Disputes Tribunal and District Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu) [2018] KEELC 441 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Eldoret HCCC (amended plaint dated 20.11.2007; number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/441/eng@2018-12-20

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