[2024] KEELC 7070 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated legal capacity to sue on behalf of his late father as required by the Law of Succession Act. Furthermore, the court held that the suit lands are currently registered in the names of persons who are not parties to the suit, and that granting the orders sought...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 7070 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Otieno Ogolla; Respondent: Land Adjudication Kisumu; Respondent: Regional Surveyor Kisumu; Respondent: Land Registrar Kisumu County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Capacity to Sue, Land Title Cancellation, Succession Law, Joinder of Parties
- 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
Daniel Otieno Ogolla
Applicant
Land Adjudication Kisumu
Respondent
Regional Surveyor Kisumu
Respondent
Land Registrar Kisumu County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has legal capacity to sue on behalf of his late father.
- 2 Whether the court can order cancellation of land titles and amendment of maps without joining the current registered owners as parties.
- 3 Whether the arbitration award of 23/1/1981 can be enforced in the present circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated legal capacity to sue on behalf of his late father as required by the Law of Succession Act. Furthermore, the court held that the suit lands are currently registered in the names of persons who are not parties to the suit, and that granting the orders sought would violate the constitutional and statutory rights of those registered owners. The application was therefore found to be without merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 6th November 2023 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Ogolla v Kisumu & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 7070 (KLR) (24 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 7070 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E019 of 2023
E Asati, J
October 24, 2024
Between
Daniel Otieno Ogolla
Applicant
and
Land Adjudication Kisumu
1st Respondent
Regional Surveyor Kisumu
2nd Respondent
Land Registrar Kisumu County
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling is in respect of the Notice of Motion application dated 6th November 2023 filed by Daniel Otieno Ogola against the Respondents. The application seeks for orders that: -a.The court be pleased to issue an order directing the 1st defendant to cancel the plot No.s Kisumu Kanyakwar B/390, 395 and 391 as per decision made by the Land Committee on appeal Case No. 9/79/1980 dated 23rd January 1981. b.The honourable court be pleased to issue an order compelling the 2nd and 3rd defendants registered Kisumu Kanyakwar Plot No. 385, 384, 469 and also amend map as it was demarcated in the year 1932 as per the decision of the Land Committee dated 23rd January 1981and petition date on 1st June 1931. c.Cost of the application.
2. The application was supported by the contents of the Supporting Affidavit of the applicant sworn on the 6th November 2023 and the annextures thereto.
3. The application was opposed vide the grounds contained in the Replying Affidavit sworn on 8/5/2024 by Nicholas Obiero, the Land Registrar Kisumu.
4. The applicant’s case is that there was arbitration award made on 23/1/1981 which awarded his late father the suit lands and that the said award has never been challenged. That he filed the suit on behalf of his father.
5. The Respondents’ case on the other hand is that the applicant has not demonstrated that he has capacity to sue on behalf of his father. That the suit lands are currently registered in the names of various persons who have not been made parties in the suit.
6. I have considered the application. I am in agreement that no merit has been demonstrated in it. The applicant who claims to have brought the suit on behalf of his late father has not demonstrated capacity to sue in terms of sections 2, 79 and 82 of the Law of Succession Act.
7. Secondly, it is the evidence of the Land Registrar, the legally recognized custodian of the records in respect of the suit lands, that the suit lands are currently registered in the names of various persons who are not parties to the suit. The application urges the court to cancel the titles and amend the maps all these without involving the registered owners. If the court were to grant the orders sought it will be violating the constitutional and other lawfully protected rights of the registered owners.
8. The application is therefore untenable and unmerited. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU, READ VIRTUALLY THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION.E. ASATI,JUDGE.In the presence of:Maureen- Court AssistantThe applicant present in person.Kobimbo for the Respondents