Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out· [2021] KEELC 445 (KLR)

Charles Lutta Kasamani v Attorney General & another [2021] KEELC 445 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
14 December 2021
DOD. O. Ohungo
1,204 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

#

A Kenyan court struck out a landowner's attempt to fix compensation after judgment, confirming that once a judge delivers a final decision, the case is closed unless formally reviewed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By amended plaint the plaintiff sought vacant possession of (or equivalent land to) L.R. 8056/314 Mumias Township plus mesne profits. Judgment delivered on 26 November 2019 by N. A. Matheka J ordered the defendants to adequately compensate the plaintiff for compulsory acquisition of his property, with costs to the plaintiff, but did not fix the quantum. Over a year later the plaintiff moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 30 March 2021 seeking adoption of his valuation report valuing the land at Kshs 13,300,000, payment of that sum as compensation, and payment of taxed costs of Kshs 417,995 with interest. The first defendant filed grounds of opposition arguing the valuation was not court-ordered, that a joint valuation was needed and that the application was not the proper enforcement vehicle. The second defendant contended the decree annexed misstated the judgment, that the valuation did not comply with Part VII of the Land Act, and that there had been no wilful breach of the orders. The court confirmed the judgment's true terms from the original record and held that, having delivered final judgment, it was functus officio and without jurisdiction to revisit the quantum of compensation, since the application sought neither review nor setting aside. The plaintiff was left to pursue lawful means of obtaining compensation, potentially through fresh proceedings. The motion was struck out with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could determine the quantum of compensation after final judgment

Holding

No - the court is functus officio; the application sought neither setting aside nor review but invited the court to vary the scope of its judgment

Reasoning

The judgment of 26 November 2019 ordered adequate compensation but did not determine its extent. Once judgment is delivered the court's powers to determine claims are exhausted, and it has no jurisdiction to revisit quantum except via review or setting aside. The application invited the court to determine value and order payment, exceeding its post-judgment jurisdiction, and any such step would be a nullity.

p. 2
02

Whether the plaintiff's valuation report could be adopted as the value of the suit property

Holding

No - quantum of compensation cannot be determined in the manner sought; the valuation was unilateral and not the subject of any court order

Reasoning

The first defendant objected that the valuation was not court-ordered and the second defendant argued it did not comply with Part VII of the Land Act. The court did not decide these on the merits, holding instead that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit quantum post-judgment at all, so the valuation issue fell away with the striking out of the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Once a court delivers judgment it becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to revoke or vary its decision save through setting aside or review
  • A court can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred on it by law; orders made without jurisdiction are a nullity
  • Proceedings filed in a court without jurisdiction cannot be remedied

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 30th March 2021 struck out
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActPart VII

Cases cited (4)

  • Raila Odinga & Others vs. IEBC & Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] eKLR
  • Phoenix of E.A. Assurance Company Limited v S. M. Thiga t/a Newspaper Service
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes; the court found it lacked jurisdiction to determine post-judgment quantum of compensation, being functus officio.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles Lutta Kasamani v Attorney General & another [2021] KEELC 445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/445/eng@2021-12-14

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