Pius Likama & 5 others v Charles Ouma Oduor [2018] KEELC 3707 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to grant land trust orders that had become unnecessary, but confirmed the defendant was only ever a caretaker and made him pay the plaintiffs' costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of supervening events on the prayers sought
The prayers were not granted because the relief sought had been overtaken by events; the land had passed from the 1st Defendant to a third party holding it in trust for the 5th Plaintiff, which was precisely what the Plaintiffs wanted
The court noted that ownership of the disputed land had changed from the 1st Defendant to a third party holding in trust for the 5th Plaintiff. Since the orders sought were premised on the 1st Defendant's registered ownership, issuing them would be futile. The court deliberately declined to make findings on prayers (a) to (e), confining itself to costs.
1st Defendant's shift in position at hearing without amending pleadings
The 1st Defendant's change of position during hearing, from asserting sole ownership to wishing the land be registered in the 5th Plaintiff's name, could not avail him because his defence was never amended
The pleadings rested on the 1st Defendant's claim of sole ownership, which grounded his own injunction claim. At hearing he wished the land transferred to the 5th Plaintiff. The court held that pleadings form the basis of orders and the Defendant ought to have amended his defence; his unpleaded shift could not be granted.
Costs
Costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs because the suit would not have been necessary had the 1st Defendant not registered the land as sole owner when he was meant to be a trustee or caretaker
On the documents availed, the court found the 1st Defendant was meant to be a trustee or caretaker of the disputed land. His registration of the land as sole owner occasioned the litigation, so costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs without hesitation.
Legal principles established
#- Pleadings form the basis upon which orders are granted; a party cannot obtain relief on a position not pleaded
- Where supervening events render the claimed orders incapable of effect, the court will decline to issue them as they would be issued in vain
Court orders
#- 1.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs
- 2.No decision made on prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the amended plaint as they have been overtaken by events
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the High Court (Environment and Land Division) over the trust claim relating to land parcel MARACHI/BUMALA/1962
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pius Likama & 5 others v Charles Ouma Oduor [2018] KEELC 3707 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC No. 17 of 2014 (Formerly HCC 75 of 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3707/eng@2018-04-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.