[2000] KECA 255 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit because the statutory consent required under section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act was expressly pleaded in the plaint. The learned judge erred in striking out the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore allowed, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 255 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: William Onginjo Kanga; Respondent: Erick Otieno Mawira
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 15 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Land Adjudication, Statutory Consent
- 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
William Onginjo Kanga
Appellant
Erick Otieno Mawira
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act.
- 2 Whether the statutory consent required under the Land Adjudication Act was obtained.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit because the statutory consent required under section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act was expressly pleaded in the plaint. The learned judge erred in striking out the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the matter remitted to the superior court for hearing on its merits.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The case is remitted to the superior court for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA & KEIWUA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 1999 BETWEEN
WILLIAM ONGINJO KANGA .............................................. APPELLANT AND ERICK OTIENO MAWIRA ...................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The only reason why the learned judge struck out the plaint is because he felt he had no jurisdiction. But the statutory consent has been granted under section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap.284. This is expressly stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint. Accordingly, the Court clearly had jurisdiction. The learned judge was plainly wrong in declining the jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The case is remitted to the superior court for hearing.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 24th day of November, 2000.
J. E. GICHERU ............... JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. A. LAKHA ............... JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. KEIWUA ............... JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original. DEPUTY REGISTRAR