Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEldoret High Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005 (consolidated with Eldoret High Court Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2007)· [2019] KEELC 1894 (KLR)

Johana Chepkurui Kibiwott v Micah Cheboi Kibiwot [2019] KEELC 1894 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (sitting at Eldoret)
7 August 2019
2,336 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 dismissed a landowner's appeal, confirming that land disputes must go through the forum the law requires, and adopted tribunal awards are final.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This consolidated appeal (Eldoret High Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005 and No. 27 of 2007, consolidated by Mwilu, J on 2nd December 2009) was brought by Johana Chepkurui Kibiwot against rulings of the subordinate courts. In Eldoret CMCC No. 1344 of 2004 the appellant had sought a permanent injunction restraining subdivision of and dealings in land parcel Sambirir/Sambirir/69, but on 7th February 2005 the trial court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and referred the matter to the Marakwet Land Disputes Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the matter on 27th October 2005 in the appellant's absence; its award was adopted in Iten RMCC LDT Case No. 7 of 2006, and on 14th February 2007 the Magistrate (N. Shiundu, RM) dismissed the appellant's application for stay of execution. The appellant advanced twelve grounds, chiefly that the Magistrate's Court and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, that the reference was unlawful, that the Tribunal breached natural justice by condemning him unheard, and that the respondent's claim was time-barred. The respondent, relying on Paul Muraya Kaguri v Simon Mbaria Muchuru, maintained that the Land Disputes Tribunal Act prescribed a statutory dispute resolution mechanism which the appellant was obliged to follow. M.A. Odeny, J held that under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed) the Tribunal was vested with jurisdiction over subdivision, boundary and occupation disputes, that the Magistrate did not err in referring the matter, that under Section 7(2) the court was bound to adopt the award and thereafter became functus officio, and that objections to place of suing could not be raised on appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court to refer the dispute to the Land Disputes Tribunal

Holding

The Magistrate did not err; the Land Disputes Tribunal Act then in force vested jurisdiction over subdivision/boundary disputes and claims to occupy or work land in the Tribunal

Reasoning

Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act (now repealed) mandated Tribunals to hear and determine disputes over division of or boundaries to land and claims to occupy or work land. The dispute here concerned subdivision of the suit parcel, squarely within the Tribunal's statutory mandate. The court's alternative would have been striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction; referral was therefore proper and the ground of appeal failed.

p. 3
02

Adoption of the Tribunal award and stay of execution

Holding

The Magistrate correctly adopted the award; once adopted, the court was functus officio and could not revisit the award's legality or efficacy

Reasoning

Section 7(2) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act was in mandatory terms requiring the court to enter judgment in accordance with the Tribunal's decision, whereupon a decree issues and is enforceable under the Civil Procedure Act. Having adopted the award without adding to or subtracting from it, the court could not entertain questions of its legality; an aggrieved party's remedy lay elsewhere. The refusal of stay was therefore lawful.

p. 3
03

Objection to place of suing / transfer

Holding

The objection fails; under Sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Procedure Act a court may transfer a suit on its own motion and place-of-suing objections cannot be raised on appeal if not taken at first instance

Reasoning

The court read Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act as permitting a court of its own motion to transfer a suit, including to the then-existing Land Disputes Tribunal. Section 16 bars objections to the place of suing on appeal unless raised in the court of first instance. The appellant also failed to state grounds on which the Tribunal allegedly lacked jurisdiction, so this ground could not have changed the outcome.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a statute establishes a dispute resolution mechanism, that mechanism must be followed, and a party who bypasses it cannot claim denial of rights
  • Under Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, disputes as to division of or boundaries to land, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass to land were to be heard and determined by a Land Disputes Tribunal
  • Upon adoption of a Tribunal's award under Section 7(2) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act, the adopting court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain the legality or efficacy of the award
  • An objection as to the place of suing cannot be raised on appeal unless it was taken in the court of first instance (Sections 16 and 17, Civil Procedure Act)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal (both consolidated appeals) dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Disputes Tribunal ActSection 3(1)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act (Cap 303A)Section 7(2)
  • Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990Section 13(3)
  • Land Control Act (Cap 302)not specified
  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22)not specified
  • Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284)not specified
  • Registered Land Act (Cap 300) (Repealed)not specified
  • Land Registration Actnot specified
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 16 and 17

Cases cited (2)

  • Paul Muraya Kaguri Vs. Simon Mbaria Muchuru
    [2015] eKLR
  • Florence Nyaboke Machani Vs. Magere Amos Ombui
    [2018] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Eldoret and Resident Magistrate's Court at Iten
Eldoret CMCC No. 1344 of 2004; Iten RMCC LDT Case No. 7 of 2006
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the subordinate courts (Memoranda of Appeal dated 2nd March 2005 and 14th March 2007); appeals consolidated by ruling of P. M. Mwilu, J dated 2nd December 2009

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Johana Chepkurui Kibiwott v Micah Cheboi Kibiwot [2019] KEELC 1894 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Eldoret High Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005 (consolidated with Eldoret High Court Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2007). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1894/eng@2019-08-07

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