[2018] KEELC 1153 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1153 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had obtained the requisite consent from the Land Adjudication Officer before instituting the suit, as mandated by Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act. The evidence presented by the Defendants, including the letter from the Land Adjudication and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1153 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mukai Mbole; Defendant: Maluu Kitandi; Defendant: Musyoka Ndambuki; Defendant: Kiamba Tivae; Defendant: Ngala Kithuku
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 207 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Outcome
suit struck out for want of jurisdiction and consent
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Consent Requirement, Striking Out Suit
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Adjudication Jurisdiction Consent Requirement Striking Out Suit

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mukai Mbole

Plaintiff

Maluu Kitandi

Defendant

Musyoka Ndambuki

Defendant

Kiamba Tivae

Defendant

Ngala Kithuku

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit concerning land under adjudication without consent from the Land Adjudication Officer.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be struck out for want of consent as required by Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had obtained the requisite consent from the Land Adjudication Officer before instituting the suit, as mandated by Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act. The evidence presented by the Defendants, including the letter from the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, confirmed that the suit land was still under adjudication at the time of filing and that no consent had been granted. Consequently, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the suit was incompetent for want of consent. The suit was therefore struck out with costs to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

suit struck out for want of jurisdiction and consent

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's Plaint is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendants.