Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

In Respect of Kwale/diani Settlement & 1 other v Exparte Sultan Khan Abdulla Fulnak Sultan Jihan

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Misc Civil Appli 27 of 2009 IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY SULTAN KHAN ABDULLA & FULNAK SULTANI KHAN AND IN THEMATTER OF: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT & RULES ORDER LIII, RULES 1,2,3 AND 4 AND KWALE/LAND AWARD NO. 54 OF 2005 IN RESPECT OF KWALE/DIANI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/201 AND IN THE MATTER OF: KWALE DISTRICT LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 54 OF 2005 REPUBLIC.............................................................................................PLAINTIFF -VERSUSMSAMBWENI LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL ………………..RESPONDENT AND RAMADHANI SWALEHE MWATAPHA SWALEHE ABDALLA MWATAPHA…………....……...INTERESTED PARTY EXPARTE SULTAN KHAN ABDULLA FULNAK SULTAN JIHAN …….………………….………………APPLICANTS JUDGMENT I am satisfied that the Interested Party was duly served. The Respondent is not opposed to the application. The Interested party appears to have filed a separate suit to seek the same orders granted by the Tribunal. On the merits, I find that the Tribunal in effect made orders determining questions of ownership and revocation of title. It clearly had no jurisdiction to grant the orders made. The title was issued after adjudication of land and it is only a court of law which can revoke the said title. I do grant prayer 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 9.3.09 with costs against the Interested Party.

page 1 of 2

Dated at Mombasa this 1st day of September 2009. M. K. IBRAHIM JUDGE

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.