[2022] KEELC 547 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 547 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was not properly grounded in law, as it sought to argue the merits of the appeal before directions had been given and was not based on a pure point of law. The court reaffirmed the appellants' constitutional and statutory right to appeal as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 547 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Vincent Orindo Nyambane; Appellant: Alfred Moffard Omunndi Michira; Respondent: Daniel Nyangaresi Orindo; Respondent: Charles Arasa Orindo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyamira
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 1 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
CM Kamau
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Fraudulent Land Registration, Succession and Inheritance, Preliminary Objection, Right of Appeal
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Locus Standi Fraudulent Land Registration Succession and Inheritance Preliminary Objection Right of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Orindo Nyambane

Appellant

Alfred Moffard Omunndi Michira

Appellant

Daniel Nyangaresi Orindo

Respondent

Charles Arasa Orindo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have locus standi to file the appeal in light of allegations of fraud and succession irregularities.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is properly grounded in law and procedure.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is rendered moot by the cancellation of the land title in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was not properly grounded in law, as it sought to argue the merits of the appeal before directions had been given and was not based on a pure point of law. The court reaffirmed the appellants' constitutional and statutory right to appeal as aggrieved parties, regardless of the respondents' allegations of fraud or the status of the land title. The right of appeal cannot be denied or curtailed on the basis of the respondents' contentions, and the preliminary objection amounted to an abuse of court process. The court dismissed the preliminary objection and ordered the respondents to bear its costs, emphasizing that...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 14/01/2022 is dismissed.
  • The respondents shall bear the costs of the preliminary objection.