[2015] KEHC 1091 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to title to land after the establishment and operationalization of the Environment and Land Court. The suit was instituted after the transitional period provided for by the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, and therefore,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1091 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wanjiru Kangethe; Defendant: Ann Wairimu Ndungu; Defendant: National Land Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 491 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Suit struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Cancellation of Title, Fraudulent Land Transfer
- 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
Wanjiru Kangethe
Plaintiff
Ann Wairimu Ndungu
Defendant
National Land Commission
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to title to land after the establishment of the Environment and Land Court.
- 2 Whether the suit was properly instituted in the High Court or should have been filed in the Environment and Land Court.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of title for alleged fraudulent transfer.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to title to land after the establishment and operationalization of the Environment and Land Court. The suit was instituted after the transitional period provided for by the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, and therefore, the High Court is expressly barred from entertaining such matters. The proper forum for the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of title due to alleged fraud is the Environment and Land Court. As a result, the suit must be struck out for want of jurisdiction, but the plaintiff is not barred from instituting a fresh suit before a court of competent jurisdiction, subject to the law...
Court Disposition
Suit struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 491 OF 2013
WANJIRU KANGETHE..........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANN WAIRIMU NDUNGU...........................................1ST DEFENDANT
NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION............................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This suit was instituted in this court on 22nd November 2013 by a plaint dated 21st November 2013.
The plaintiff Wanjiru Kangethe claims that the defendants Ann Wairimu Ndungu and National Land Commission on 19th February 2009 the defendants fraudulently transferred plot No.LR7340/55 NJIRU/Githunguri measuring 4. 129 acres in favour of 1st defendant using an impostor as the legal owner since the legal owner thereof being Kangethe Njuguna had already died in 2002.
The plaintiff claims that on 8th March 2002 the 1st defendant did purchase the said land from Kangethe Njuguna (deceased) at a consideration of 1,000,000 –ONE Million out of which she made party payment of 400,000/- leaving a balance of which she agreed to pay once title was acquired by her but on 2nd July 2002 the seller died before fully effecting a transfer of the said title in the 1st defendant’s name.
The plaintiff therefore prays for cancellation of title to NJIRU/GITHUNGURI LR 7340/55, costs of the suit and interest and any other relief since the transfer was fraudulently effected in her name.
From the above background, although this suit is listed today for formal proof hearing as the defendants neither entered appearance nor filed defence despite service of summons to enter appearance being served upon them culminating in the request for interlocutory judgment and entry of such interlocutory judgment by the Deputy Registrar on 15th September 2014, It is clear that the claim is over title to land.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, disputes relating to environment, and the use and occupation of and title to land shall be heard and determined by a superior court with the status of the High Court to be established and whose functions and jurisdiction would be conferred by an Act of Parliament in 2011, Parliament enacted the Environment and Land Court Act , 2011 and Section 4 thereof establishes the Environment and Land Court.
Section 13(1) and (2) of the Act confers original and appellate jurisdiction on the said court, to hear and determine all disputes as contemplated in Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution and as may be conferred by any law applicable in Kenya to environment and land.
In addition, Article 165(5) (b) of the Constitution expressly bars the High Court from hearing and determining disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the courts contemplated in Article 162(2) of the Constitution. Albeit the transitional and consequential provisions of the Constitution under part 5 Section 22 on Administration of Justice permit proceedings pending before this court on the effective date to continue to be heard and determined pending the establishment of the corresponding court, in this case the Environment and Land Court, or as may be directed by the Chief Justice or Registrar of the High Court, which provisions are supplemented by Section 30 of the Environment and Land Court Act; it is clear that this suit was instituted long after the effective date, and even after the establishment and full operationalization of the Environment and Land Court.
It follows that this suit was instituted in this court by an incurable error.
The law requires that a suit is instituted in a court which has jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is everything without which, a court of law acts in vain by making any other step, once the court finds from the onset that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute. Had the suit been instituted in the transitional period, it would have been excusable.
The dispute was filed clearly outside the transitional period since the Environment and Land Court was established in 2011 and in 2012, judges of that court were appointed to preside over the court. The suit is filed by an advocate of the High Court of Kenya who is deemed to know the law. It cannot be said that the advocate did not know where this suit ought to have been instituted in the first instance, even as at 2014, when summons to enter appearance were being issued for service to the National Land Commission. At the material time, the Environment and Land Court was fully in place and therefore it cannot, possibly be true that the plaintiff’s advocate confused the courts. In addition, as at that time November 2013, the Land Act and Land Registration Act, 2012 were in place and operational. Under Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012:
“80(1) subject to Sub Section (2) the court may order the rectification of the register by directing that any registration be cancelled or amended if it is satisfied that any registration was obtained, made or omitted by fraud mistake.
Section 2 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 defines “court” means the Environment and Land Court established under the Environment and land Court Act, 2011.
It follows that any claim for cancellation of title could only be filed in the Environment and Land Court and no other. A party must first consult the law before instituting any claim to establish the jurisdiction of the court over the cause of action.
As stated earlier, this suit was not instituted during the transitional period, had that been the case, this court would simply transit it to the Environment and Land Court. However, as the suit was filed after the transitional period, it follows that the same having been filed before a court whose jurisdiction is expressly ousted by the Constitution, I can do no more than strike out this suit for want of the requisite jurisdiction, which act of striking out, nonetheless, does not bar the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit before a court of competent jurisdiction, subject, of course, to the law of limitations.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 7th day of October 2015.
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
7/10/2015