Kemei v Kemei & another (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7419 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kericho dismissed a self-represented litigant's appeal, confirming that cancelling title deeds must wait for the full trial, not interim rulings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant was denied a hearing
Ground fails - the record shows the Appellant participated in the hearing of the application
The court traced the record: the Appellant was represented initially, filed a notice of intention to act in person, and was acting in person at the hearing. Directions were issued for submissions, mentions took place on 28th March 2024 and the matter was reserved for ruling on 4th April 2024. His contention that he was denied an opportunity to be heard was therefore factually incorrect and the ground failed.
Whether the application was heard in the Appellant's absence on 4th October 2023
Ground fails - the matter never proceeded on 4th October 2023; it was mentioned several times with both parties present
The court found no proceedings for 4th October 2023. On 8th November 2023 both the Appellant and Respondents were present; the court explained the court had not sat on 4th October 2023, allowed the 2nd Respondent time to respond, and directed the application be heard by written submissions before it was reserved for ruling.
Whether the ruling was based on submissions filed by the Appellant's former advocates
Ground fails - no such submissions exist on the record and the alleged filing predates the suit
The suit was filed on 17th January 2023 and the notice of intention to act in person was filed on 28th March 2023. The alleged submissions by Motanya & Co. Advocates dated 4th January 2023 could not exist because neither the suit nor the application had been filed then, and no such submissions appear on the record.
Whether the appellate court should annul the title deeds and issue conservatory orders
Ground fails - the relief sought duplicates the Plaint and is for the trial court, not the appellate court
The Plaint already seeks a declaration that the registrations were fraudulent and cancellation of titles; the suit is yet to be heard. The trial magistrate dismissed the application as bad in law, noting it blended Plaint prayers with probate-type prayers. The question of cancellation of title deeds cannot be determined on an appeal from an interlocutory ruling.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence on the record while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- A question of cancellation of title deeds cannot be determined on an appeal from a ruling on an interlocutory application; it is for the trial court
- A document filed without leave of the court and under unknown procedure will not be considered
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Kericho (Environment and Land)
- Kericho CM ELC Case No. E003 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land) against a ruling on an interlocutory application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kemei v Kemei & another (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kericho CM ELC Appeal from Case No. E003 of 2023 (Memorandum of Appeal dated 24th September, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7419/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.