Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherPetition No. 35 of 2015 (consolidated with Petition No. 34 of 2015)· [2019] KEELC 3459 (KLR)

Fredrick Tureisa Lekesike v Iman Dahir & 3 others [2019] KEELC 3459 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 March 2019
1,757 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that once land adjudication is finished and titles issued, claimants can go straight to court without using internal dispute processes that no longer exist.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two constitutional petitions filed on 1st December 2015 (Petition No. 35 of 2015 by Fredrick Tureisa Lekesike and Petition No. 34 of 2015 by Duba Galgalo Duba) concerning land parcel MARSABIT/JIRIME/1390, registered in the name of the 1st Respondent Iman Dahir, were directed to run simultaneously. Each petitioner claimed that a plot they owned (No. 1488 and No. 794 respectively) had been illegally consolidated into parcel 1390. Before the merits were heard, the 2nd to 4th Respondents (the state) and later the 1st Respondent filed preliminary objections contending that the petitions offended Sections 26 and 30 of the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284), which require objection proceedings within the adjudication process and written consent of the adjudication officer before instituting civil proceedings. The petitioners responded that consent had been sought and refused because adjudication was complete and titles issued. The court, applying the Mukisa Biscuit definition of a preliminary objection, held that the adjudication register for the Jirime Adjudication Section had become final, a letter of finality had been issued and a title deed issued on 30th October 2013, so the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Act had ceased to exist and it would be futile to remit the petitioners to them. The authorities relied on by the respondents were distinguished as concerning unregistered land or parties who had not participated in objection proceedings. The court also noted uncertainty over the applicable statutory regime and the land category. Both preliminary objections were dismissed with no orders as to costs, leaving the petitions pending hearing on the merits.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petitions were barred for failure to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms under the Land Adjudication Act and for lack of consent under Section 30

Holding

The preliminary objections fail because the adjudication register for the Jirime Adjudication Section had become final, titles had been issued, and the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Act no longer existed.

Reasoning

Section 30 restricts civil suits concerning land in an adjudication section before the register becomes final, and Section 26 provides objection mechanisms. The court found from the Land Adjudication Officer's affidavit and the letter of finality that the register had been forwarded to the Chief Land Registrar and a title deed issued on 30th October 2013. With adjudication complete, the mechanisms under the Act had ceased, so requiring exhaustion would be futile. The authorities relied on by the respondents were distinguishable as they concerned unregistered land or parties who had not participated in objection proceedings.

p. 3
02

Whether the authorities cited by the respondents on exhaustion of remedies applied to the present case

Holding

The cited cases were distinguishable: Arithi concerned unregistered community land with a stalled process, while the other cases involved petitioners who had not participated in objection proceedings under Section 26.

Reasoning

The court distinguished Arithi Self Help Grazing Group because there the land was unregistered community land and the adjudication process had stalled due to litigation, unlike the present case where adjudication was complete and titles issued. In John Masiantet Lolungiro and David Mtawali Kazungu Yaa, the courts were dealing with petitioners who had participated in objection proceedings, a crucial step under Section 26. Those factual matrices did not obtain here.

p. 3
03

What is the correct definition of a preliminary objection

Holding

Adopting the classic Mukisa Biscuit formulation: a preliminary objection is a point of law which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit.

Reasoning

The court framed the applicable law by citing the well-settled Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd decision before assessing the Notices of Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st Respondent and by the 2nd to 4th Respondents, both raising the question of jurisdiction under the Land Adjudication Act.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Once an adjudication register has become final, the dispute resolution mechanism under the Land Adjudication Act ceases and litigants cannot be sent back to a process which no longer exists.
  • The exhaustion doctrine does not apply where the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer available because the adjudication process is complete.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objections by the 1st Respondent and by the 2nd to 4th Respondents are dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs on the dismissed Preliminary Objections

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284, Laws of Kenya)Section 26
  • Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284, Laws of Kenya)Section 30(1) and (3)
  • Land Consolidation Act (Cap 283, Laws of Kenya)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kilusu Julius Sile & 60 Others v Chairperson, Oloirien Adjudication Section 'B' Committee & 30 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Nicholas Mugambi & Another (suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of Peter Etharia M'Kailibi) & 4 Others v Zachary Baariu & 6 Others
    eKLR
  • Arithi Self Help Grazing Group vs The Land Adjudication Officer Imenti North & Another
    Meru ELC Petition 28 of 2015
  • John Masiantet Saeni vs Daniel Aramat Lolungiro & 3 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • David Mtawali Kazungu Yaa vs National Lands Commission & 3 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles of the Constitution invoked by constitutional Petition regarding land parcel MARSABIT/JIRIME/1390; jurisdiction determined in relation to the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284), Sections 26 and 30

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

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, "Fredrick Tureisa Lekesike v Iman Dahir & 3 others [2019] KEELC 3459 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No. 35 of 2015 (consolidated with Petition No. 34 of 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3459/eng@2019-03-28

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