[2022] KEHC 2800 (KLR)
The High Court declined to make any orders on the motion to adopt the mediation settlement agreement because the agreement was reached and adopted in proceedings before a court with jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, by virtue of Article 165(5), lacks jurisdiction to intervene in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2800 (KLR)
- Parties
- MISSING: Isaac Juma Raketo (Deceased); Applicant: Mr. Okeyo; Respondent: Ms. Omar
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 115 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Motion to Adopt Mediation Settlement Agreement
- Outcome
- Motion declined for want of jurisdiction and insufficient documentation.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Mediation Settlement, Adoption of Orders
- 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
Isaac Juma Raketo (Deceased)
MISSING
Mr. Okeyo
Applicant
Ms. Omar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Motion to Adopt Mediation Settlement Agreement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to adopt and enforce a mediation settlement agreement reached and adopted in proceedings before a court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
- 2 Whether the motion to adopt the mediation settlement agreement can be determined without the relevant proceedings and orders being placed before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court declined to make any orders on the motion to adopt the mediation settlement agreement because the agreement was reached and adopted in proceedings before a court with jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, by virtue of Article 165(5), lacks jurisdiction to intervene in or enforce orders from such proceedings. Furthermore, the necessary documents and proceedings leading to the mediation and its adoption were not placed before the court, making it impossible to determine the motion without acting blindly. The proper forum for execution of the mediation settlement is the court that adopted it under Article 162(2).
Court Disposition
Motion declined for want of jurisdiction and insufficient documentation.
Orders
- No orders made on the Motion dated 24th November 2020; let it lie in abeyance, with liberty to apply.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 115 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ISAAC JUMA RAKETO (DECEASED)
RULING
1. The Motion dated 24th November 2020 invites me to make orders in line with a mediation settlement agreement dated 14th October 2020, which was allegedly adopted by the court on 21st October 2020.
2. I am unable to determine the said Motion as the process that led up to the mediation settlement agreement was not placed before me. The mediation settlement agreement appears to reverse the order that Mwita J made herein on 30th November 2016, yet the reference to mediation appears to have been made in proceedings other than these, and the mediation settlement was adopted as order of the court in those other proceedings, not in the instant proceedings. I will need to see copies of the proceedings which led up to the mediation, inclusive of the order adopting the settlement. Determining the Motion without sight of those proceedings would be equivalent to acting blindly.
3. It would appear that those other proceedings were before a court with jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. I would have no jurisdiction, by dint of Article 165(5) of the Constitution, to intervene in proceedings that the courts envisaged in Article 162(2) of the Constitution are seized of. A mediation settlement agreement adopted by a court envisaged under Article 162(2) should, ideally, be executed through the processes of that court. What I am being invited to do is to grant orders that ought to be made by the courts envisaged in Article 162(2), and I clearly have no jurisdiction to do so, on account of Article 165(5).
4. I will make no orders on the Motion dated 24th November 2020, in the circumstances. Let it lie in abeyance, but there is liberty to apply.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 28TH DAY OF
JANUARY, 2022
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE
Mr. Erick Zalo, court assistant
Mr. Okeyo, instructed by Messrs. Okeyo Ochiel & Company Advocates, for the applicants
Ms. Omar, instructed by Ms. R. Omar & Company, Advocates, for the respondents