Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Appeal (Environment and Land Court, Isiolo), appeal from CM ELC No. 7 of 2018· [2022] KEELC 3692 (KLR)

Jama v Mohamed & another (Environment and Land Appeal 010 of 2010) [2022] KEELC 3692 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
25 July 2022
3,623 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed an appeal over an Isiolo plot, confirming the original owner's title and ordering the losing appellant to pay costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Isiolo against the judgment of Hon. S. M. Mungai, Chief Magistrate, delivered on December 13, 2018 in CM ELC No. 7 of 2018 (also referred to as No. 7 of 2011), concerning competing claims to plot no. 94 Kiwanjani Isiolo. The appellant, Shukri Ismail Jama, advanced nine grounds of appeal, contending that the magistrate failed to appreciate her exhibits, wrongly found her evidence contradictory, and erred in holding that her allocation and registration of the plot was unlawful, fraudulent and irregular ab initio; she sought setting aside of the judgment and a retrial involving all stakeholders. The 1st respondent countered that she had proved lawful allocation of plot no. 557 as first allottee, that the appellant's allocation was of fictitious and dubious origins, and that her uncontroverted counterclaim based on pleaded fraud had been upheld. The court, P M Njoroge J, independently reviewed the lower court record as a first appellate court, found the magistrate had properly considered the exhibits and all evidence and submissions, that the appellant's evidence was in many respects contradictory, and dismissed all nine grounds. It held that a magistrate has no duty to compel a litigant to participate in a particular way, since litigants bear responsibility for placing all evidence before the court. The objection that the appeal was defective for want of a certified decree under order 42 rule 13(4)(f) was rejected as raised too late and unfounded on the record. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the lower court properly considered the appellant's exhibits and evidence (grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9)

Holding

All these grounds were dismissed; the learned Magistrate properly considered the exhibits, rightly found the appellant's evidence contradictory, and the judgment was erudite in considering all available evidence and submissions

Reasoning

The court perused the lower court proceedings and submissions, juxtaposed them against the judgment and the totality of the evidence, and independently arrived at its own decision as a first appellate court. It found the magistrate had properly considered the exhibits, that the appellant's evidence was in many respects contradictory, and that the decision was not against the weight of evidence.

p. 6
02

Whether the finding that the appellant's allocation and registration was unlawful, fraudulent and irregular ab initio was erroneous (ground 7)

Holding

The ground was dismissed; the lower court's finding on ownership was reached after consideration of the evidence availed by the parties

Reasoning

The 1st respondent had particularised fraud in her uncontroverted counterclaim, and the lower court upheld it after analysing the evidence. The first appellate court found the decision on lawful ownership was properly reached on the evidence and dismissed the ground for the same reasons as ground 2.

p. 6
03

Whether the trial Magistrate erred in failing to compel the 2nd respondent to participate fully in the trial (ground 8)

Holding

The ground was dismissed; a court cannot ferret out evidence not provided by the parties without being accused of bias

Reasoning

The court distinguished the Kenyan adversarial system from the Continental European civil system where courts may seek out evidence. It held that litigants bear responsibility for placing all their evidence before the court, and a trial magistrate has no duty to compel a litigant to prosecute its case in a particular way.

p. 7
04

Whether the appeal was defective for failure to file a certified copy of the decree under order 42 rule 13 (4) (f)

Holding

The objection was raised too late and, in any event, the record of appeal contained a copy of the judgment, satisfying the requirement

Reasoning

The court held the issue was raised too late at the tail end of proceedings and should have been raised at commencement. It further found the record of appeal contained the apposite judgment and that leave to appeal had already been granted by a Judge before the hearing commenced.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • On a first appeal, the court is entitled to consider and analyse the evidence tendered in the lower court and arrive at its own decision
  • A trial Magistrate has no duty to compel a litigant to prosecute its case in a particular way; it is the responsibility of litigants to place all evidence before the court
  • An objection that the appeal is defective for want of a certified decree must be raised at the commencement of proceedings, not at the tail end

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall follow the event and are awarded to the 1st respondent against the appellant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rulesorder 42 rule 13 (4) (f)
  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A and 1B
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Isiolo Law Courts
CM ELC No. 7 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Environment and Land Court against the judgment of the Chief Magistrate in CM ELC No. 7 of 2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jama v Mohamed & another (Environment and Land Appeal 010 of 2010) [2022] KEELC 3692 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Appeal (Environment and Land Court, Isiolo), appeal from CM ELC No. 7 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3692/eng@2022-07-25

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