Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutConstitutional Petition No. 536 of 2017 (Petition dated 22nd February 2013)· [2021] KEELC 1179 (KLR)

Stanley Kipkurui Cheruiyot & 29 others v District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Transmara East/ West Districts & 2 others; Kitatei Ntingidai Ole Sipei & 8 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 1179 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
27 October 2021
4,035 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court struck out 29 farmers' land ownership petition because they had to first exhaust land adjudication dispute procedures before going to court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Twenty-nine petitioners, residents of Transmara for over 40 years, petitioned the Environment and Land Court at Narok alleging that the adjudication process in Olonkolin Adjudication Section was marred by irregularities and fraud. They sought a declaration that they were the rightful owners of specified land parcels and an order of mandamus compelling the District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer to re-open the adjudication register for inspection, contending that the designated inspection venue did not exist and that they had been denied access to the register. Interim conservatory orders barring completion of the register had been granted in 2013. The Respondents and Interested Parties opposed, arguing the adjudication register had been published and objections lodged under sections 25, 26 and 29 of the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284), that the Petitioners had not exhausted statutory remedies, that section 30 barred the suit, and that the mandamus prayer was res judicata following Kisii JR Misc. App No. 36 of 2011. Framing four issues, the court held it lacked jurisdiction: section 30 of Cap 284 mandatorily bars civil proceedings concerning interests in land in an adjudication section until the register becomes final, and the register here remained open. It further held the Petitioners were bound to exhaust the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms, including appeal to the Minister, and that the mandamus prayer was res judicata despite the Petitioners not having been parties to the Kisii suit. Declining to consider alleged rights violations as academic, the court struck out the Petition with costs to the Respondents and Interested Parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land in an ongoing adjudication section

Holding

The court lacked jurisdiction because section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act bars civil proceedings concerning interests in land in an adjudication section until the register becomes final, and the adjudication register here had not been closed

Reasoning

The parcels in dispute fall within Olonkolin Adjudication Section and the adjudication process remained unfinished - indeed interim orders barred the Respondents from closing the register. Section 30 of Cap 284, which is mandatory, prohibits instituting or entertaining civil proceedings on interests in land in such a section absent the adjudication officer's written consent. The Petitioners, seeking declarations of ownership, did not comply with this procedure.

p. 6
02

Exhaustion of statutory remedies under the Land Adjudication Act

Holding

The Petitioners were obliged to use the dispute resolution mechanisms in sections 26, 29 and 30 of Cap 284, including appeal to the Minister, before approaching the court

Reasoning

Relying on Abdallah Mangi Mohamed and Mutanga Tea & Coffee Company Ltd, the court held that where a statute prescribes a specific dispute resolution mechanism, it must be utilised first. Article 159(2)(c) recognises alternative dispute resolution, and the mechanisms in the Land Adjudication Act had not been declared unconstitutional. Entertaining the petition would usurp those mechanisms.

p. 6
03

Res judicata in respect of the mandamus prayer

Holding

Prayer No. 2 (mandamus to re-open the register) was res judicata, having been determined in Kisii HCJR Misc. App No. 36 of 2011, even though the Petitioners were not parties to that suit

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act embodies res judicata to end litigation and prevent abuse of process. Although the Petitioners were not parties to the earlier Kisii suit, the issues and subject matter were similar and directly in issue, and the earlier matter was heard and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 28 of the Environment Court Act also bars re-litigation of finally determined issues.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a statute prescribes a specific dispute resolution mechanism, an aggrieved party must exhaust that mechanism before invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction
  • No court shall entertain civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register has become final under section 29(3) of the Land Adjudication Act, save with the adjudication officer's written consent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition dated 22.02.2013 is struck out with costs to the Respondent and the Interested Parties
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23, 35 and 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Articles 6 and 7 of the Sixth Schedule

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stanley Kipkurui Cheruiyot & 29 others v District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Transmara East/ West Districts & 2 others; Kitatei Ntingidai Ole Sipei & 8 others (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 1179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Constitutional Petition No. 536 of 2017 (Petition dated 22nd February 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1179/eng@2021-10-27

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