[2019] KEELC 3405 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3405 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff was not disputing the adjudication register as contemplated under section 26 of the Land Adjudication Act, but was seeking an eviction order. The evidence showed that the adjudication process was still ongoing and the register had not been completed. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3405 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Mwiti Wanderi; Defendant: Joseph Mbijiwe; Defendant: David Mutuma Mugambi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 235 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Before Hearing on Merits
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Court, Eviction Orders, Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Adjudication Jurisdiction of Court Eviction Orders Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Mwiti Wanderi

Plaintiff

Joseph Mbijiwe

Defendant

David Mutuma Mugambi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Before Hearing on Merits

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit while the land is still under adjudication.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust remedies under the Land Adjudication Act before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not disputing the adjudication register as contemplated under section 26 of the Land Adjudication Act, but was seeking an eviction order. The evidence showed that the adjudication process was still ongoing and the register had not been completed. The court held that the preliminary objection, which was based on lack of jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion of statutory remedies, was unmerited because the plaintiff's claim did not fall within the objections contemplated by the Act. Accordingly, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and allowed the suit to proceed to hearing on its merits.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 16th July 2018 is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No orders as to costs.