Mattu v Ngoma (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5472 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled an order forcing a man to sell land he never agreed to sell, ruling the magistrate had no power over the Kshs 30 million property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent proved that he was entitled to review on account of discovery of new evidence
- 2.Whether the trial court was correct in ordering the Appellant to transfer the suit property to the Respondent
- 3.Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for review and by extension the suit itself
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent established discovery of new evidence justifying review
No. The Respondent knew during the hearing that the Appellant was an administrator of the estate; no evidence proved selective transfers or that the green cards could not have been obtained with due diligence.
The green card for LR Makueni/Unoa/3771 was registered to the Appellant in February 2018 and transferred to Sammy Mavutha Lala in October 2017, before the suit filed in 2020, with no proof the purchaser bought before the grant. The Respondent was aware at the hearing that the Appellant held letters of administration (issued 2009, confirmed 2012) and had approached him for transfer. He therefore failed the strict proof requirement in the proviso to Order 45 Rule 3(2).
Whether the trial court was correct in ordering the Appellant to transfer the suit property
No. The Appellant was not party to the sale agreements; the contract was with the 1st Defendant who lacked capacity, making it a nullity unenforceable by specific performance.
The agreements were signed between the Respondent and the 1st Defendant, whom the trial court had found lacked capacity to sell deceased's land. Ordering the Appellant - who had no privity of contract - to transfer was illogical. Specific performance is discretionary and unavailable for an illegal contract; the sale by a person without a grant was a nullity amounting to intermeddling under the Law of Succession Act.
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the suit and review
No. The suit property was valued at Kshs.30,000,000/= by the Respondent's own valuation report, exceeding the Chief Magistrate's monetary jurisdiction of Kshs.20,000,000/=; the magistrate should have downed his tools.
The Respondent himself introduced a valuation report through a supplementary affidavit putting the suit property's value at Kshs.30,000,000/=, well beyond the Chief Magistrate's capped jurisdiction. The Respondent's estoppel and pleading objections failed because jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that may be raised at any stage, including on appeal, and cannot be conferred by consent or acquiescence.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence requires strict proof that the matter was not within the applicant's knowledge and could not, with due diligence, have been adduced when the decree was made
- Specific performance is founded on the existence of a valid, enforceable contract; it will not be granted on an illegal or void contract and cannot be ordered against a party with no privity of contract
- Jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal; where the subject matter exceeds a court's monetary jurisdiction the court must down its tools
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal was allowed
- 2.The ruling of the trial court (the court records 11th April, 2024) was set aside
- 3.In place thereof, the Respondent's application dated 16th May, 2024 was dismissed
- 4.Costs of the application were awarded to the Appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Chief Magistrate's Court)
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the trial magistrate's ruling on review, per Civil Procedure Act and Rules (Order 45 Rule 3(2) Civil Procedure Rules, 2010)
Relief refused
#Respondent's application for review of the judgment delivered on 11th April, 2024
The Respondent failed to prove discovery of new and important evidence not obtainable with due diligence as required by Order 45 Rule 3(2); the trial magistrate also lacked monetary jurisdiction over the suit property valued at Kshs.30,000,000/= against a Chief Magistrate's cap of Kshs.20,000,000/=
Costs
The appeal was allowed and the application dated 16th May, 2024 was dismissed with costs (costs to the Appellant). No costs order on the appeal itself beyond 'I therefore allow the appeal ... with costs'.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Respondent did not prove the facts he was alleging. He did not prove that whatever he was calling new evidence would not have been obtained if he had exercised due diligence. The Respondent did not meet the requirements of Order 45 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Appellant had no privity of contract with the Respondent. There is no way he would be ordered to transfer land to a person with whom he had no contract.
The contract therefore sufiered from an illegality and cannot be enforced.
It is clear that the issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that it can even be raised on appeal.
I therefore allow the appeal with the result that the ruling of the trial court delivered on 11th April, 2024 is hereby set aside and in place thereof I make an order dismissing the application dated 16th May, 2024 with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The disposition states the ruling being set aside was 'delivered on 11th April, 2024', but earlier in the judgment 11th April, 2024 is the date of the main suit judgment; the review ruling was delivered on 20th June, 2024.
The green card for LR Makueni/Unoa/3771 is recorded as registered in the Appellant's name on 24th February, 2018 yet transferred by him on 6th October, 2017 - a date inconsistency within the judgment.
The background records the Respondent's purchase from the 1st Defendant as concerning 'Makueni/Unoa/23' in one relief and 'Makueni/Unoa/236' elsewhere in the same paragraph, an internal inconsistency in parcel numbers.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mattu v Ngoma (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5472 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5472/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.