[2017] KEELC 3506 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3506 (KLR)

The court found that the Tribunal's Award did not specifically state that parcels 1376 and 1423 shared a boundary, nor did it direct that a boundary be reinstated between those two parcels. The District Surveyor's report and sketch map confirmed that plot 1376 did not border plot 1423. The Magistrate's order of 11th...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3506 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Seth Mbithe Kioko; Respondent: Bernard Wambua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Case Number
Civil Appeal 191 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Land Boundaries, Title Deeds, Tribunal Awards, Survey Reports
Source Language
english
Land and Property Land Boundaries Title Deeds Tribunal Awards Survey Reports

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seth Mbithe Kioko

Appellant

Bernard Wambua

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in setting aside the orders of 11th December, 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's Award was properly interpreted and enforced by the lower court.
  3. 3 Whether there exists a boundary between parcels Mitaboni/Mutituni/1376 and 1423 as claimed by the Appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Tribunal's Award did not specifically state that parcels 1376 and 1423 shared a boundary, nor did it direct that a boundary be reinstated between those two parcels. The District Surveyor's report and sketch map confirmed that plot 1376 did not border plot 1423. The Magistrate's order of 11th December, 2012, which directed issuance of a title deed and reinstatement of a boundary between the two parcels, was therefore erroneous and not supported by the Tribunal's Award or the factual evidence. The Magistrate was correct in setting aside the earlier order upon realizing the error. The appeal was thus dismissed as unmeritorious.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Appellant's appeal is dismissed with costs.