[2025] KEELC 4792 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 4792 (KLR)

The court found that the suit land is situated in an area declared as an adjudication area under section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act, and that an adjudication process is ongoing. The plaintiffs did not obtain the written consent of the adjudication officer as required by section 30 of the Act before instituting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 4792 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Philemon Kimutai Yator; Plaintiff: Thomas Kitum Runguno; Defendant: Jacob Biwott; Defendant: Assistant County Commissioner - Kapsower
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Iten
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E002 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/application to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; no order as to costs
Judges
L Waithaka
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Court, Consent Requirement, Representative Suits, Exhaustion of Remedies
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Adjudication Jurisdiction of Court Consent Requirement Representative Suits Exhaustion of Remedies

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philemon Kimutai Yator

Plaintiff

Thomas Kitum Runguno

Plaintiff

Jacob Biwott

Defendant

Assistant County Commissioner - Kapsower

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/application to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit concerning land situated in an adjudication area without the written consent of the adjudication officer as required by section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had exhausted the remedies provided under the Land Adjudication Act before approaching the court.
  3. 3 Whether the suit was properly instituted as a representative suit without leave of the court and proper authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit land is situated in an area declared as an adjudication area under section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act, and that an adjudication process is ongoing. The plaintiffs did not obtain the written consent of the adjudication officer as required by section 30 of the Act before instituting the suit. The court held that lack of knowledge of the adjudication status or the alleged illegibility of the notice could not confer jurisdiction where it is expressly excluded by statute. The court further found that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of compliance with the statutory requirement for consent, nor did they demonstrate exhaustion of alternative remedies...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit and the application.