[2007] KEHC 2675 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2675 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership or lawful occupation of the land in question, as they admitted to having no title deeds and were not included in the official list of mine site farmers (either freehold or leasehold) occupying the mining area. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs had not lived on the land since the 1960s and did not currently reside or farm there. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not parties to any contract with the defendant and could not claim damages for breach of contract. The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter, but determined that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any legal or equitable interest...

Citation
[2007] KEHC 2675 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Said Abdalla Budzo, Masudi Tsumo Khamisi, Salim Ali Mwakukana, Ramadhan Mohamed Mwamguno, Kassim Masudi Ngocho, Mwalimu Athumani Gariko, Ali Hassan Mbega, Kassim Salim Likongo, Suleiman Shehe Kocha, Mwinyi Hamisi Masumba, Mohamed Ali Bokomo, Saidi Muhamadi Sarai, Shee Mbwana, Ali Hassan Njama, Omar Juma Selemani, Saidi Nasoro Mwakamole, Juma Abdalla, Kassim Omari Mwamapemba, Salim Mbwana Zomu, Athumani Mwakam, Faki Mbraruku, Mwinyi Hamisi Mwakiwela, Juma Hamisi Dzengo, Rashid Bakari Mwajopu, Salim Hamisi Barua, Said Kamole, Masudi Salim Bamvua, Omar Mbwana Kali, Athumani Mbaruku, Mohamed Omar Abdalla, Mohamed Omari Mwamadi Bakari, Ali Athumani Mwanaka, Juma Mohamed Mwagongolo, Ali Musa, Radhani Masudi Gambere, Abdalla Shabani Achiliko, Amza Salim Mbwana (suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the below named members of the Avirizi, Achina-Uchi and Achina Ngala clans); Defendant: Tiomin (K) Limited; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 February 2007
Case Number
Civil Case 31 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Compensation for Land, Mining Rights, Ownership Disputes, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Compensation for Land Mining Rights Ownership Disputes Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Said Abdalla Budzo, Masudi Tsumo Khamisi, Salim Ali Mwakukana, Ramadhan Mohamed Mwamguno, Kassim Masudi Ngocho, Mwalimu Athumani Gariko, Ali Hassan Mbega, Kassim Salim Likongo, Suleiman Shehe Kocha, Mwinyi Hamisi Masumba, Mohamed Ali Bokomo, Saidi Muhamadi Sarai, Shee Mbwana, Ali Hassan Njama, Omar Juma Selemani, Saidi Nasoro Mwakamole, Juma Abdalla, Kassim Omari Mwamapemba, Salim Mbwana Zomu, Athumani Mwakam, Faki Mbraruku, Mwinyi Hamisi Mwakiwela, Juma Hamisi Dzengo, Rashid Bakari Mwajopu, Salim Hamisi Barua, Said Kamole, Masudi Salim Bamvua, Omar Mbwana Kali, Athumani Mbaruku, Mohamed Omar Abdalla, Mohamed Omari Mwamadi Bakari, Ali Athumani Mwanaka, Juma Mohamed Mwagongolo, Ali Musa, Radhani Masudi Gambere, Abdalla Shabani Achiliko, Amza Salim Mbwana (suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the below named members of the Avirizi, Achina-Uchi and Achina Ngala clans)

Plaintiff

Tiomin (K) Limited

Defendant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims made in this suit.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred under the Mining Regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have established ownership or lawful occupation of the land in question.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership or lawful occupation of the land in question, as they admitted to having no title deeds and were not included in the official list of mine site farmers (either freehold or leasehold) occupying the mining area. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs had not lived on the land since the 1960s and did not currently reside or farm there. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not parties to any contract with the defendant and could not claim damages for breach of contract. The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter, but determined that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any legal or equitable interest...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
  • The plaintiffs may pursue claims regarding trees through the District Resettlement and Compensation Committee, but only for trees not on titled land.