[2025] KEELC 665 (KLR)
The court declined to make a determination on the issue of jurisdiction at this preliminary stage, noting that the parties had not adequately addressed the matter in their submissions. The judge held that, in the interests of justice and to allow the parties a full opportunity to present their arguments, the issue...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 665 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Aggrey Muloli; Respondent: Land Registrar, Kakamega; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: Benson Kwena Sindani; Interested Party: Isaac Scout Sindani
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Issue (jurisdiction)
- Outcome
- No determination on jurisdiction; issue deferred to trial court.
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Land Registration, Cancellation of Title, Constitutional Rights, Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court
- 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
Aggrey Muloli
Applicant
Land Registrar, Kakamega
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Benson Kwena Sindani
Interested Party
Isaac Scout Sindani
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Issue (jurisdiction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition regarding cancellation of land registration and alleged constitutional violations.
- 2 Whether the actions of the 1st respondent in cancelling the petitioner’s registration as proprietor without notice contravened constitutional and statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to make a determination on the issue of jurisdiction at this preliminary stage, noting that the parties had not adequately addressed the matter in their submissions. The judge held that, in the interests of justice and to allow the parties a full opportunity to present their arguments, the issue of jurisdiction would be left open for determination by the trial court. The ruling emphasized the importance of not preempting the trial court's consideration of jurisdiction, especially where the parties had not fully ventilated the issue. As such, no conclusive finding on jurisdiction was made, and the matter was left to be addressed at the substantive hearing.
Court Disposition
No determination on jurisdiction; issue deferred to trial court.
Orders
- The issue of jurisdiction is deferred for determination by the trial court.
- Parties will have an opportunity to address jurisdiction at the substantive hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Muloli v Land Registrar, Kakamega & another; Sindani & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 665 (KLR) (20 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 665 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023
DO Ohungo, J
February 20, 2025
Between
Aggrey Muloli
Petitioner
and
Land Registrar, Kakamega
1st Respondent
Attorney General
2nd Respondent
and
Benson Kwena Sindani
Interested Party
Isaac Scout Sindani
Interested Party
Ruling
1. The petitioner moved this Court through petition which he filed on 10th August 2023 and in which he sought the following orders:a.A declaration that the 1st respondent in cancelling the registration of the petitioner’s (sic) as proprietor of Kakamega/Chekalini/4886 without notice was in contravention of articles 10, 27, 47 and 232 of the constitution and section 9 of the LRA.b.An order of certiorari to bring into this court and quash the illegal orders of the 1st respondent of cancelling the partition of land parcel No, Kakamega/Chekalini/1337 into 4885 and 4886. c.A declaration that the petitioner is the bonafide owner of land parcels No. Kakamega/Chekalini/4886. d.The petitioner prays for general damages against the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent and the 1st interested party jointly and severally for breach of his rights under article 10, 27, 40 and 47 of the constitution.
2. When the matter came up before me for directions on 12th February 2024, I ordered that the parties address the Court on jurisdiction. At the request of the parties, directions for filing and exchange of written submissions on the issue were given.
3. The Petitioner filed submissions dated 9th December 2024. The said submissions did not at all address the issue of jurisdiction. The Respondents did not file any submissions.
4. On their part, the Interested Parties filed submissions dated 14th May 2024. They cited Article 162 (2) (b) and (3) of the Constitution as well as Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and argued that the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. I have considered the pleadings and the submissions. I wish parties had addressed the matter in detail. So as to give parties the opportunity to advance their arguments, and so as not to tie the hands of the trial Court, I have decided not to make a determination on the issue of jurisdiction at this point. Parties will, in due course, have an opportunity to address it before the trial Court.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS, AT NYAMIRA, THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. D. O. OHUNGOJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:Ms Namenge holding brief for Mr Luchivya for the PetitionerMr Simiyu for the RespondentsNo appearance for the Interested PartiesCourt Assistant: B Kerubo