[2010] KEHC 2475 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the suit land was agricultural land falling within the jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal, as there was no evidence that the land was not within Molo Township. The burden of proof lay with the appellant, who did not discharge it. The court also held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2475 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Isaac Kimani Kamau; Respondent: William Munyungu Chege
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 71 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts, Land Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Trespass to Land, Eviction 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 Kimani Kamau
Appellant
William Munyungu Chege
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear a claim of trespass to land in light of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
- 2 Whether the appeal was incompetent due to lack of leave or consent for change of advocates after judgment.
- 3 Whether the trial magistrate's failure to write a proper judgment as required by Order 20 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the suit land was agricultural land falling within the jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal, as there was no evidence that the land was not within Molo Township. The burden of proof lay with the appellant, who did not discharge it. The court also held that the change of advocates after judgment did not render the appeal incompetent, as Order 3 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules does not require leave or consent for new counsel to file an appeal. Although the trial magistrate did not write a proper judgment as required by Order 20 Rule 4, this omission did not result in a miscarriage of justice, since the respondent did not...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Appeal 71 of 2000
ISAAC KIMANI KAMAU….……………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
WILLIAM MUNYUNGU CHEGE...………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Senior Resident Magistrate delivered on 16th June 2000 in Molo SRMCC No. 77 of 1993 in which he entered judgment for the respondent with costs as prayed in the plaint and ordered the eviction of the appellant from the suit land.
In their submissions counsel for the respondents challenged the competence of the appeal on the ground that contrary to Order 3 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure RulesM/S Karanja Mbugua & Co. Advocates filed this appeal without first obtaining leave of court.M/S D. K. Otwere Advocates who had acted for the appellant in the lower court gave their consent to M/S Karanja Mbugua & Co. Advocates to replace them on 30th June 2000 while M/S Karanja Mbugua & Co. Advocates had already filed this appeal the previous day.In the circumstances they contended that this appeal is bad in law and should be struck out.
I find no merit in this contention.Order 3 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules is intended to protect advocates who have acted in cases upto judgment from being defrauded of their fees.An appeal arising from the judgment in such a suit constitutes a different action which entitles the parties to instruct counsel of their choice.If either of the parties decides to retain counsel who represented him in the lower court, he will have to pay them fees for the appeal.In the circumstances I find that M/S Karanja Mbugua & Co. Advocates did not require leave or consent from the appellant’s previous advocates for them to file this appeal.I therefore find the appeal competent and accordingly overrule the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondent.
On the merits of the appeal counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim in the suit giving rise to this appeal having been one of trespass the Senior Resident Magistrate’s court had no jurisdiction to hear it.In their opinion the matter should have been filed before the
areaLandDisputes Tribunal in accordance to Section 3(1)(c) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990. They cited the case of Muhia Vs Mutura [1999] 1 EA 2002in support of that submission.Even if that court had jurisdiction they urged me to find that the learned trial magistrate had failed to write judgment as required by Order 20 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and allow the appeal.They said the learned trial magistrate failed to make findings on the prayers for general damages for trespass and mesne profits.
For the respondents M/S Waiganjo and Co. Advocates referred me to Section 2 of the Land Control Act which defines agricultural land as being land outside a municipally, township or trading centre and submitted that in the absence of any evidence that the suit land was not within Molo Township I cannot make a finding that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Land District Tribunal.They therefore urged me to dismiss the appeal with costs.
I have considered these submissions and read the lower court record.Section 107 of the Evidence Act requires a party who alleges a fact to prove it.In this case it is the appellant who is alleging that the suit land is agricultural land and that the trespass claim in this matter should have been filed before the
areaLandDisputes Tribunal.They have therefore the burden of proving that allegation.
I agree with counsel for the respondent that there is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute in this case was not within Molo Township.In the circumstances I find that the appellant has failed to prove the allegation that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Whereas I agree with counsel for the appellant that the learned trial magistrate did not write a proper judgment as required by Order 20 Rule 4of the Civil Procedure Rules, I nevertheless find that that omission has not caused a miscarriage of justice in this case.The respondent had prayed for an award of general damages and mesne profits for trespass to his land and the eviction of the appellant.The learned trial magistrate only ordered the eviction and said nothing about his claim for general damages.The respondent has not cross-appealed against that failure to determine his claim for general damages.He appears to have been satisfied with the eviction of the appellant that is why I find that the learned trial magistrate’s omission to determine the damages claim has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice.Consequently I dismiss this appeal with costs.
DATED and DELIVERED this 28th day of April, 2010.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE.