[2016] KEHC 3941 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly upheld the preliminary objection on jurisdiction, as the dispute concerned trespass to land, which, under Section 3(1)(c) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal. The magistrate did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 3941 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Maurice Wafula Wasike; Respondent: Rajab Pambere
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 151 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Trespass to Land, Preliminary Objection, Land Disputes Tribunal, Striking Out Suit
- 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
Maurice Wafula Wasike
Appellant
Rajab Pambere
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a claim of trespass to land under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate correctly upheld the preliminary objection on jurisdiction, as the dispute concerned trespass to land, which, under Section 3(1)(c) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal. The magistrate did not act improperly or descend into the arena of litigation, but was properly called upon to determine the issue of jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the striking out of the suit with costs was legally justified. The appeal was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO. 151 OF 2010
MAURICE WAFULA WASIKE..............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJAB PEMBERE.............................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
[1] The appellant herein filed a plaint on 12th October 2011 which was amended on 29th June 2006. The partinent claim in para 4 stated as follows:
4. The Defendant has been and is still illegally occupying land parcel No. Muchi/Ndivisi/1215 for quite sometimes and facts and details of this claim are well known by the defendant herein.
4. The defendant without any justifiable cause has been in illegal occupation and/or use of the said parcel No. Muchi/Ndivisi/1215 measuring approximately (1. 1) Ha and that the plaintiff seeks a declaration from the Honourable court that the occupation is illegal and will demand mesne profits from the defendant made from the said parcel plus costs and interest of the case.
[2] The defendant filed a defence which was amended on 27th September 2005 denying the claim in para 5 of the amended defence. The defendant stated as follows:
5. The defendant avers that the plaintiff’s suit is incompetent, frivolous, vexatious, ill-advised, mis-directed and improper for which the defendant hereby gives NOTICE that the defendant will at the 1st hearing hereof apply to have it struck out and dismissed with costs for non-compliance with section 3 of Land Disputes Act No. 18 of 1990.
[3] On 13/3/2008 the advocate for the defendant raised a Preliminary Objection that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter in view of the Provisions of Section 3(1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 which was then in force.
[4] The trial magistrate F. Kyambia ruled that the court had no jurisdiction because the case fell squarely under Section 3(1)(c ) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990. The court then upheld the Preliminary Objection and struck out the suit with costs.
[5] It is against that ruling that the appellant filed this appeal. The applicant alleges on his ground of appeal that the trial magistrate ascended into the arena of the case and deliberated on the issue of jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. An issue not cited by the respondent in his defence.
[6] I have perused the original record, the plaint and amended plaint, the defence and amended defence. From my reading of the plaint it is crystal clear that the plaintiff was complaining of trespass by the defendant. The law in force at the time, the Land Disputes Tribunal Act 18 of 1990 Section 3(1) (c ) required that all disputes relating to trespass to land among other issues be dealt with by the tribunal.
[7] The magistrate did not descend in to the arena of Litigation. He was invited by the defendant to find that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with trespass to land. He had to make a finding on the Preliminary Objection raised on jurisdiction. He ruled that the court had no jurisdiction and that it was the Land Disputes’ Tribunal that had jurisdiction. He came to the then correct legal position. He had no choice but to strike out the suit.
[8] This Appeal therefore has no merits. The same is dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered this 27th day of July 2016
S.MUKUNYA - JUDGE
In presence of
Madam Nanzushi for the appellant
Mr. Kraido for the respondent absent
Joy/Gladys court clerk