[2019] KEELC 315 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 315 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to prosecute his appeal, having not filed the record of appeal within the stipulated time and subsequently expressing a desire to withdraw the appeal. The trial magistrate's orders were based on findings that the suit land had been properly distributed in a prior succession...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 315 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: M’Twiga Bore; Respondent: Eliphas Kithinji Bore
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 10 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Beneficial Interest, Eviction Orders, Injunctions, Costs Award
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Beneficial Interest Eviction Orders Injunctions Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M’Twiga Bore

Appellant

Eliphas Kithinji Bore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the issues had been conclusively determined by the High Court at Meru in Succession Cause No. 93 of 1998.
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate failed to consider the needs and means of the dependants to the estate of the late Bore Rugie in distributing the estate.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a beneficial interest in the suit land and if the orders of eviction and injunction were proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prosecute his appeal, having not filed the record of appeal within the stipulated time and subsequently expressing a desire to withdraw the appeal. The trial magistrate's orders were based on findings that the suit land had been properly distributed in a prior succession cause and that the appellant had no beneficial interest in the property. The appellate court saw no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision, as the appellant did not demonstrate any error of law or fact by the trial court. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.