Nicolas Muriithi v Margaret Ruguru & 4 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU Civil Appeal 6 of 1998 NICOLAS MURIITHI…….………………………....………….APPELLANT VERSUS MARGARET RUGURU………………………………..1ST RESPONDENT LINCOLN NYAGA…………………..………………….2ND RESPONDENT FREDRICK MUGO…….……………………………….3RD RESPONDENT ESTHER MUTHONI…………………..………………..4TH RESPONDENT PATRICK NJUE………………………………………..5TH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the ruling dated 9/4/1997 in Resident Magistrate Civil Case No. 68 of 1996 at Embu Resident Magistrate’s Court. The grounds of appeal are state: The first ground is that the appellant wanted to divide his land according to his wish. Secondly that the Trial magistrate failed to see that the land was registered in the appellants name. Thirdly that the Trial Magistrate erred in dismissing the objections raised by the Appellant and lastly the Trial Magistrate erred in failing to consider the Act that a person cannot be forced to distribute his estate against his wishes. The dispute arises from elder’s award which was read to the parties on 20/12/1996 and parties given 30 days within which to file objections. The objection was filed by Defendant and ruling was given on 9/4/1997. The ruling was with regard to application dated 17/1/1997 where the Appellant sought to set aside the award of elders and that the case be heard de novo. The grounds which were relied upon by the Appellant was one. “that the arbitration did not give me enough time to express my views” The court has perused that ruling. The Trial Magistrate considered the issue and made a finding that the Appellant was given sufficient time to present his views before elders. He had even chosen two elders to form the panel of arbitrators. The court has perused the record and finds that the Appellant was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The grounds of appeal set out do not arise out of the ruling or the arguments of parties. The duty of the Trial Magistrate was to record the award of arbitration which he

page 1 of 2