[2024] KEHC 3780 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 3780 (KLR)

The court held that although the matter was a land dispute that should have been filed in the Environment and Land Court, the applicant had actively participated in the proceedings before the High Court, including filing pleadings and affidavits. This conduct amounted to submission to the court's jurisdiction, and the applicant was estopped from later challenging the court's competence. Furthermore, the substantive dispute had already been resolved: the land was surveyed, the encroaching building demolished, and the appeal was spent. There was nothing left for either the High Court or the Environment and Land Court to determine. The application to set aside the orders and strike out the...

Citation
[2024] KEHC 3780 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Lucy Mukuba; Respondent: Peter Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Case Number
Civil Appeal E034 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Orders and Strike Out Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
application dismissed; no order as to costs; file closed
Judges
EM Muriithi
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court, Appeals From Land Disputes, Estoppel by Conduct, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Jurisdiction of Court Appeals From Land Disputes Estoppel by Conduct Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Mukuba

Appellant

Peter Gitonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Orders and Strike Out Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal arising from a land dispute originating from the Environment and Land Court.
  2. 2 Whether the orders made by the High Court in the appeal should be set aside for want of jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal should be struck out as spent and for being filed in the wrong forum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the matter was a land dispute that should have been filed in the Environment and Land Court, the applicant had actively participated in the proceedings before the High Court, including filing pleadings and affidavits. This conduct amounted to submission to the court's jurisdiction, and the applicant was estopped from later challenging the court's competence. Furthermore, the substantive dispute had already been resolved: the land was surveyed, the encroaching building demolished, and the appeal was spent. There was nothing left for either the High Court or the Environment and Land Court to determine. The application to set aside the orders and strike out the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed; no order as to costs; file closed

Orders

  • The application dated 24/5/2023 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.