Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 23rd July 2015)· [2020] KEELC 2252 (KLR)

Nsato Maroa v Magebo Sabure (Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2018) [2020] KEELC 2252 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
27 May 2020
GOG. M. A. Ong'ondo
2,375 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that a decision made without jurisdiction is a nullity that needs no court order to set aside, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant, Nsato Maroa, appealed against a ruling of the trial court delivered on 15th July 2015 dismissing his application dated 10th April 2015 seeking review of orders dated 22nd October 2014 and execution of a decree dated 13th January 2011. The underlying dispute concerned Land Registration No. Bugembe/Masaba/304, over which the defunct Kuria West District (Masaba Division) Land Disputes Tribunal made an award in the appellant's favour, adopted as judgment by the trial court on 13th January 2011. The respondent then pursued a Judicial Review application (Kisii ELC JR No. 49 of 2011), which, though dismissed for want of merit, made findings that the defunct Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine title to land, rendering its award and the adopted judgment nullities. The appellant argued that under Order 22 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules he was obliged to issue a Notice to Show Cause before execution, and that the JR decision had not set aside the adopted judgment. The respondent maintained the trial court rightly relied on the nullity findings. G.M.A Ong'ondo J held that the ELC could not supervise a court of concurrent jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b), endorsed the JR findings that the Tribunal's award was a nullity for want of jurisdiction, and applied Macfoy v United Africa Co Ltd to hold that a void act needs no formal setting aside. The appeal was dismissed with costs in the appeal and the original suit to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the appellant's application for review and execution based on the findings in the Judicial Review application

Holding

The trial court was right: the defunct LDT lacked jurisdiction over title to land, so its award and the adopted judgment were nullities that needed no formal setting aside

Reasoning

The court perused the JR decision of Samson Okongo J, which held that the defunct LDT had no jurisdiction to determine title, making the award a nullity and the adopted judgment equally a nullity. Relying on Macfoy v United Africa Co Ltd, Desai v Warsame and Samwel Kamau Macharia, the court endorsed the finding that void acts are nullities ab initio requiring no order to set aside. The trial court therefore correctly declined to permit execution of the decree.

p. 4
02

Whether this Court can sit in supervision over a court of concurrent jurisdiction regarding the JR application

Holding

No - the ELC cannot supervise a decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court acknowledged it could not sit on appeal over the JR application by virtue of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution. It would only pay deference to the trial court's decision and assess whether that court correctly directed its mind in dismissing the appellant's application based on the JR decision.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court of law cannot confer jurisdiction on itself; assumed jurisdiction is a nullity
  • A void act is a nullity ab initio and requires no court order to set it aside
  • A court's jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal dated 23rd July 2015 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal and the original suit are awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 23(3)(f)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 7(3)(b), 159(2)(b) and (d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 22 Rule 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of KenyaSection 3A
  • Environment and Land Court Act, 2015Sections 3 and 19
  • Land Disputes Tribunals Act, 1990 (repealed)Not specified

Cases cited (6)

  • Republic -vs- Karisa Chengo and 2 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Selle and another –vs- Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd
    (1968) EA 123
  • PIL Kenya Ltd –vs- Oppong
    (2009) KLR 422
  • Desai –vs- Warsame
    (1967) EA 351
  • Samwel Kamau Macharia and another –vs- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd and others
    (2012) eKLR
  • Macfoy –vs- United Africa Company Ltd
    (1961) 3 All ER 1169 at 1172
On appeal from
Trial court (magistrates' court, Kuria West District, Masaba Division)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Environment and Land Court Act, 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nsato Maroa v Magebo Sabure (Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2018) [2020] KEELC 2252 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 23rd July 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2252/eng@2020-05-27

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