[2011] KEHC 1121 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st defendant had, in both the original and amended defences, expressly admitted the jurisdiction of the High Court, even after the Land Disputes Tribunal Act came into operation. The defendant did not amend this position despite ample opportunity. Furthermore, the Land Disputes Tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1121 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Wanjohi Mugambi; Defendant: James Muriuki Kiambo; Defendant: The Land Registrar Kerugoya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 4040 of 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Preliminary Objection, Registered Land Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Wanjohi Mugambi
Plaintiff
James Muriuki Kiambo
Defendant
The Land Registrar Kerugoya
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit in light of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection on jurisdiction is valid given the defendant's prior admission of jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether the suit constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st defendant had, in both the original and amended defences, expressly admitted the jurisdiction of the High Court, even after the Land Disputes Tribunal Act came into operation. The defendant did not amend this position despite ample opportunity. Furthermore, the Land Disputes Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes concerning registered land, which is the subject matter of this suit. The preliminary objection was raised nearly 24 years after the suit was filed, constituting an unreasonable delay and contributing to further delay in the proceedings. The court held that the preliminary objection was misplaced, lacked merit, and was an abuse of the court...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection dated 4th August, 2008 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 4040 OF 1986
DAVID WANJOHI MUGAMBI ………………..................………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES MURIUKI KIAMBO ………………......................…………..1ST DEFENDANT
THE LAND REGISTRAR KERUGOYA ……....................………….2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This suit was filed by way of a plaint dated 27th October, 1986. On 3rd September, 2008 the 1st defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th August, 2008 to the effect that this suit is incompetent and defective in that the court does not have jurisdiction to continue hearing and determining this suit as the court jurisdiction has been ousted by the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 Section 3 and Section 21 (4) and Section 150 of the Registered Land Act Cap 300 Laws of Kenya. It is also stated by the 1st defendant that this suit is otherwise an abuse of the court process and should be struck out.
From the age of this dispute, this is a very old matter and which has been subject to intense litigation. I note from the record that the 1st defendant filed a defence dated 4th March, 1987 in which at paragraph 7 admitted the jurisdiction of this court.The plaint was amended subsequent thereto but the defendant never changed that position even in the amended defence dated 24th April, and filed on 13th May 1993. The Land Dispute Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 came into operation before the amended defence aforesaidand therefore when the said amended defence was being drawn and filed the said Act was in operation.
That notwithstanding, the 1st defendant admitted the jurisdiction of this court. I also note that this Notice has been filed close to 24 years from the time this suit was instituted. I am unable to comprehend the reasons for raising such a crucial issue relating to jurisdiction this late in the day and especially so, when I know also that the Land Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to registered land. I find that the Notice is misplaced and if anything, has contributed to a further delay in this case. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 26th Day of July, 2011
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE