[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit concerning land under adjudication without consent from the Land Adjudication Officer.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 207 OF 2016
MUKAI MBOLE.............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MALUU KITANDI...............................................1ST DEFENDANT
MUSYOKA NDAMBUKI...................................2ND DEFENDANT
KIAMBA TIVAE.................................................3RD DEFENDANT
NGALA KITHUKU............................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Amended Notice of Motion dated 9th October, 2017, the Defendants are seeking for an order striking out the suit. The Application is premised on the grounds that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the suit; that as per the records of the Land Adjudication Department, no consent was issued to the Plaintiff allowing him to file the suit and that the suit land is within the Kaluva Adjudication Section.
2. In response, the Plaintiff deponed that the suit property is Kaluva/2195 which is registered in his favour; that the Defendants have been destroying property on the suit land and that he filed the suit to stop the Defendants from continuing with trespassing on the suit land.
3. The Defendants’ advocate submitted that Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act prevents the institution of suits in court on matters concerning interest of land in an adjudication section; that the suit land was still under adjudication as at the time of filing the suit and that the suit should be struck out for want of consent. The Plaintiff did not file submissions.
4. In the Plaint dated 18th November, 2016, the Plaintiff averred that he is the sole proprietor of all that parcel of land known as Kanduti/Katumbu/2195 (the suit land);that the Defendants have taken a portion of the suit land and are claiming ownership of the same and that the Defendants have declined to vacate the land.
5. The Defendants filed a Defence in which they denied that this court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act. Although the Plaintiff has deponed that the suit land is registered in his name, he did not annex the register to show that the interests in parcel number 2195 Kanduti/Katumbu have crystallized.
6. The Defendants have exhibited on their Affidavit the letter dated 7th June, 2017 from the Kitui Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer. In the said letter, the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer has stated that as at 25th November, 2016, Kaluva Adjudication Section was still under adjudication. The letter further stated that there were no records to show that the Plaintiff was granted a consent before filing the suit.
7. It is trite that before filing a suit in respect to land which is still under adjudication, the consent of the Land Adjudication Officer is required. Section 30 of the Act provides as follows:
“Except with the consent in writing of the adjudication officer, no person shall institute and no court shall entertain, any civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an Adjudication Section until the adjudication register for the Adjudication Section has become final in all respects under Section 29(3) of this Act.”
8. The adjudication register becomes final when the Director of Land Adjudication certifies the register and sends details to the Chief Land Registrar to prepare a register. Having failed to show that he obtained the consent of the Land Adjudication Officer before commencing the current proceedings, I find that the suit offends the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act.
9. In the circumstances, the Application dated 9th October, 2017 is allowed. The Plaintiff’s Plaint is therefore struck out with costs to the Defendants.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE