[2020] KEHC 2703 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to pursue the matter as the grant he relied upon had been revoked in Kapsabet Succession Cause No 57 of 2012. The court confirmed from the original record that the revocation was valid, despite the absence of a magistrate's name or court seal, as this was a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2703 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Kiplagat Arap Baraiywo; Respondent: Stephen Kipkoech Kibenei; Applicant: Julius Kipkoech Chepkwony (as the legal representative of the estate of Sigei Saina)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 344 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Locus Standi, Revocation of Grant, Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court
- 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
Kiplagat Arap Baraiywo
Respondent
Stephen Kipkoech Kibenei
Respondent
Julius Kipkoech Chepkwony (as the legal representative of the estate of Sigei Saina)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant had locus standi to pursue the matter after revocation of the grant.
- 2 Whether the applicant could properly appear as an objector in the succession cause.
- 3 Whether the Environment and Land Court is the proper forum for the applicant's land claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to pursue the matter as the grant he relied upon had been revoked in Kapsabet Succession Cause No 57 of 2012. The court confirmed from the original record that the revocation was valid, despite the absence of a magistrate's name or court seal, as this was a consistent practice in the court's documentation. Even if the applicant were considered to have locus as a legal representative, he could not properly appear as an objector in the succession cause, and any claim to land should be pursued before the Environment and Land Court. Therefore, the preliminary objection was upheld and the application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 344 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPUNYUNY ARAP MISOI
KIPLAGAT ARAP BARAIYWO................1ST PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT
STEPHEN KIPKOECH KIBENEI..............2ND PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
JULIUS KIPKOECH CHEPKWONY (AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE OF SIGEI SAINA).......................OBJECTOR/APPLICANT
RULING
1. A preliminary objection dated 22/07/2019 had been raised with regard to the status of the applicant in pursuing this matter on grounds that he had no locus standi, as the grant he sought to rely on as giving him authority to pursue this matter was revoked in KAPSABET SUCCESSION CAUSE NO 57 OF 2012. The applicant doubted the authenticity of the claim as the proceedings purported to emanate from Kapsabet Court were neither certified, nor did they bear the seal of that court, or the name of the magistrate.
2. Subsequently this court called for the original record from Kapsabet and I have perused the proceedings and confirm that there is a record in the court file dated 22/11/2018 showing that the grant was revoked. It would seem that the court had a practice of not indicating the name of the magistrate against the signature, nor would a court seal be embossed on the documents. Indeed, there is also a copy of the notice dated 25th October directed at the respondent, and it bears a similar signature with no name or seal. That pattern is repeated in Form P & A 41, so on the face of the record the grant was revoked, and the applicant has not shown any other document to demonstrate that he has locus to pursue this matter
3. Yet even if for argument’s sake he were to be found to have locus as a legal representative of the estate of SIGEI SAINA, then he cannot purport to be an objector in this cause, and his proper forum for redress over the claim to land, would be before the Environment and Land Court. Consequently, I hold and find that the preliminary objection has merit and is upheld. The application filed herein is thus dismissed with costs to the respondents
Virtually Delivered and dated this 28th day of July 2020 at Eldoret
H.A. OMONDI
JUDGE
Mr Sambu present
Mr. Magut absent