Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCA Case No. 41 of 2019· [2020] KEELC 1911 (KLR)

Salim Hamisi Kisokoni v Dismas Makokha Mangoli & another [2020] KEELC 1911 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 June 2020
NMN.A. Matheka
1,158 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kakamega dismissed an appeal by Salim Hamisi Kisokoni against the judgment in Mumias Principal Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 254 of 2011, in which Dismas Makokha Mangoli had been awarded Ksh. 62,000 and an injunction concerning cane proceeds from plot No. 517 Nambacha. The appellant, a judgment debtor, advanced six grounds, principally that the suit was heard and determined in his absence contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution, and that he was unrepresented contrary to Article 50(2)(h). He sought a fresh trial before a different court and a stay of the orders of 11th June 2018. The court perused the lower court file and found that judgment entered on 20th January 2012 had been set aside on 8th June 2012, defences were filed, and the matter proceeded to full hearing where the appellant was present and participated fully, testifying as DW1 and admitting harvesting the cane. Judgment was delivered by G.N. Sitati RM in the presence of all parties. The court held the appellant untruthful in asserting the trial was conducted in his absence, and found, applying Article 50(1) and the authorities on fair hearing, that he received a fair trial. Applying the Mwanasokoni standard for appellate interference with findings of fact, the court found the trial magistrate's decision judiciously arrived at. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appellant's right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution was violated

Holding

No violation; the appellant was served, participated fully in the trial, testified as DW1 and admitted harvesting the cane

Reasoning

The record showed the appellant was present and participated fully at the hearing and defence hearing, testified as DW1, and admitted harvesting the cane. Judgment was delivered in the presence of all parties. The court found the appellant untruthful in claiming the trial was conducted in his absence, so Article 50 was satisfied.

p. 2
02

Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial magistrate's findings of fact

Holding

The appeal court will not interfere with trial court findings of fact absent no evidence, misapprehension of evidence, or wrong principles; here the decision was judiciously arrived at

Reasoning

Relying on Mwanasokoni v Kenya Bus Service, the court applied the standard that findings of fact stand unless based on no evidence, misapprehension of it, or wrong principles. Finding none, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial magistrate.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court is duty bound to revisit the evidence on record, evaluate it and reach its own decision, but will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact of a trial court unless based on no evidence, on misapprehension of it, or on wrong principles

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.It is so ordered

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 50(1) and Article 50(2)(h)

Cases cited (3)

  • Juma & Another v Attorney General
    2003 eKLR
  • Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution v Speaker of the National Assembly
    (2016) eKLR
  • Mwanasokoni v Kenya Bus Service
    (1982 - 88) 1 KAR 870
On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court, Mumias
Civil Suit No. 254 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from subordinate courts (ELCA Case No. 41 of 2019)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Salim Hamisi Kisokoni v Dismas Makokha Mangoli & another [2020] KEELC 1911 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELCA Case No. 41 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1911/eng@2020-06-23

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