|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Delay and non‑manifest alleged illegalities defeated an application for extension of time to file a revision.
Extension of time – whether sufficient cause shown; Doctrine of apparent illegality – must be obvious on face of record; Land disputes – geographic description and evidentiary assessment not ordinarily apparent illegality; Non‑joinder of public authorities – necessity and prejudice must be demonstrated; Assessors’ opinions – bare allegation insufficient to vitiate proceedings.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Tribunal prematurely dismissed land claim as time‑barred without resolving possession, administrator’s locus standi, and alleged void sale.
* Land law – limitation – accrual of cause of action: death vs dispossession; Sections 9, 24, 35 Law of Limitation Act. * Locus standi – effect of later appointment as administrator on limitation. * Validity of transactions by person acting before lawful appointment – nemo dat quod non habet / void ab initio. * Civil procedure – raising limitation suo motu and right to be heard; premature summary dismissal where possession/dispossession disputed.
|
10 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Consent judgment ordering sale of mortgaged land with specified proceeds allocation, reserve price, and mutual release of claims.
Land law – mortgage and secured transactions; consent judgment recording settlement; sale of mortgaged property by secured creditor’s agent; allocation of sale proceeds with cap and ratio; agreed reserve price; settlement extinguishing all related claims; each party bears own costs.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
The High Court held the applicant's suit was not time‑barred and had jurisdiction to hear declaratory reliefs against the respondent.
• Civil procedure — Preliminary objections — pure point of law versus mixed questions of fact and law (Mukisa Biscuit).
• Limitation — ministerial extension of time — applicability to representative capacity requires document and factual scrutiny.
• Jurisdiction — pecuniary limits vs declaratory reliefs — High Court’s power to determine capacity and validity of contracts transcends monetary thresholds.
• Costs — in the cause.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Res judicata barred the applicant’s claim because a corporate name change did not create a new legal entity.
* Civil procedure – res judicata – application where earlier suit concerned same subject matter and party in substance or privy (s.9 Civil Procedure Code).
* Company law – change of name – mere change of corporate name does not affect legal personality or rights and obligations (s.30(4) Companies Act).
* Distinction between name change and institutional succession; substitution in court unnecessary for mere rebranding.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Electronic filing within time is valid; minor typographical errors are correctable; relief in favour of a non‑party struck out.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objections – timeliness of appeal under Land Disputes Courts Act and Electronic Filing Rules; * Pleadings v instruments – memorandum of appeal not requiring drawer’s name under Advocates Act; * Typographical errors – correctable under overriding objective (Sections 3A & 3B CPC amendments); * Jurisdiction and relief – court will not grant relief in favour of non‑party; defective portion struck out.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Applicant’s admitted loan default and absence of irreparable harm defeat Mareva injunction; application dismissed with costs.
Mareva-type injunction; interim relief requirements under Atilio v Mbowe — prima facie case; irreparable injury; balance of convenience; borrower default and clean hands; lawful mortgage enforcement and public interest. |
27 October 2025 |
|
Appellant’s trespass claim dismissed for failure to prove title and boundaries; appeal timely; costs awarded to respondent.
Land law – trespass – burden of proof and necessity of proving size and precise boundaries; documentary evidence and locus in quo measurements; limitation – exclusion of time awaiting copy under section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act; costs – discretion to depart from rule that costs follow the event, appellate review limited to perversity or wrong principle.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
An appeal filed beyond the 45‑day statutory period without express leave is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Land law – appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal – statutory 45‑day limitation under s.44(2) LDA – effect of filing out of time – Law of Limitation Act s.3(1) – competence of procedural withdrawal-and-refile orders to extend limitation – Electronic Filing Rules (2018) – filing date and requirement to seek ex parte Registrar relief for technical e‑filing failures – necessity to attach ruling/drawn order to prove leave to refile.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Alleged defective auction notice and risk of losing the matrimonial home justified a temporary injunction pending trial.
Civil procedure – Interim injunction – Order XXXVII Rule 1(a) CPC – three‑part test: prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; Auctioneers Act s.17(1) – requirements as to particulars of auction sale; sale of matrimonial home – potential irreparable injury; procedural irregularity in recovery by mortgagee.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Court recorded and adopted parties' deed of settlement as consent decree, making it binding and effective from lodging date.
* Civil procedure – Consent judgment – Recording and adopting a deed of settlement under Order XXIII rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. * Land law – Settlement terms providing for transfer of land, substitution by motor vehicle, and allocation of transfer costs. * Enforcement – Settlement recorded as court decree is binding on parties and successors; necessary state officers to facilitate transfers. |
27 October 2025 |
|
Insufficient proof of ownership and suing an improper party defeated the land claim; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law — ownership claim — burden of proof under Evidence Act — inadequacy of documentary exhibit lacking description of location/extent; Civil procedure — improper party — Order I Rule 10(2) CPC — suing wrong party; Procedure — locus in quo visits discretionary, not mandatory; Credibility — assessment of witnesses and weight of evidence.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
A caveator’s affidavit words determine whether they must be sued personally or as an estate administrator.
Land law – Caveat – capacity of caveator: personal capacity v. administrator; procedural law – preliminary objection on proper party; evidence – import of caveat affidavit language; Land Registration Act s.78(4).
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Trial Tribunal properly credited a sale agreement over an ambiguous gift deed; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land dispute — ownership — weight of evidence: sale agreement and witness testimony vs. ambiguous deed of gift; absence of payment receipts; assessor opinion and procedural compliance under Land Disputes Courts Act.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
A plaint must sufficiently describe immovable property; failure renders the suit incompetent and any decree inexecutable.
* Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 3 – requirement to describe immovable property sufficiently to identify it; failure renders suit incompetent and decree inexecutable.
* Locus in quo – visiting the site is discretionary, not mandatory; only in exceptional circumstances.
* Executability of decree – decree must issue from competent suit with identifiable property description.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Failure to notify a party of the date of delivery of an ex-parte judgment is a fatal irregularity justifying setting it aside.
* Civil procedure – ex-parte judgment – mandatory requirement to notify absent party of date of delivery – failure to notify renders judgment irregular/nullity.
* District Land and Housing Tribunal – review of records (including Ward Tribunal records) when assessing compliance with service/notice requirements.
* Appeal – new grounds not pleaded cannot be entertained; appellate scope may be limited to pleaded issues.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Registered ownership shown by a certificate of title confers locus standi and rebuts competing user claims absent proof of fraud.
Land law – Registered title as prima facie proof of ownership; locus standi to sue; plea-binding effect of pleadings; necessary parties — Commissioner for Lands; proof of fraud/illegality in registration; adverse inference for failure to call material witness.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Guardian’s mortgage of a minor’s land for her own business was void; consequent sale and transfer were null and ownership restored.
* Land law – guardianship – minor’s property – guardian’s capacity to mortgage – guardian may bind minor only for necessities or in minor’s best interest; mortgage for guardian’s business void ab initio.
* Conveyancing – mortgage, auction sale and transfer – nullity where underlying mortgage is void.
* Bona fide purchaser – purchaser’s duty of due diligence; purchase under guardianship is notice to purchaser.
* Reliefs – declaration of ownership, revocation of title, nullification of mortgage and sale, vacant possession, damages and costs.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
A tribunal's proceedings infected by substantive confusion and incorrect citations may be quashed by revisional powers.
* Land law – rectification of award – execution of decrees – interest computation query and attachment of immovable property.
* Civil procedure – clerical error versus substantive irregularity – effect of wrong citations and misjoinder on Tribunal proceedings.
* Jurisdiction – functus officio and Tribunal’s competence to entertain rectification during execution.
* High Court revisional powers – quashing of Tribunal proceedings and orders where records show substantial confusion or infirmity.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
An improperly conducted locus in quo vitiates the tribunal’s proceedings, requiring a re‑visit and fresh judgment.
* Locus in quo – procedural requirements – witnesses to give sworn evidence at the visit – right to cross‑examination – duty to record observations and prepare sketch plan where necessary. * Failure to comply with locus in quo procedures vitiates tribunal proceedings, assessors’ opinions and judgment. * Timeliness of appeal – appeal filed within prescribed time.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Functus officio inapplicable to dismissed objection proceedings; unpleaded inheritance and unreliable witness testimony justified dismissal of appeal.
Land law – ownership disputes – functus officio inapplicable to dismissed objection/execution proceedings; pleadings bind parties — unpleaded inheritance not admissible to establish title; assessment of witness credibility — invader’s testimony unreliable; documentary evidence – inconsistencies and jurisdictional defects justify cautious evaluation.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Tribunal ownership finding upheld; unstamped sale agreement must be perfected by paying stamp duty within 21 days.
* Land law – sufficiency of property description in tribunal applications under GN 174/2003; applicability of Order VII R.3 CPC. * Civil procedure – service and notice for ex-parte judgment; natural justice and fair hearing. * Evidence/stamp duty – admissibility and remedy for unstamped sale agreements; requirement to perfect instrument under Stamp Duty Act s.47(1). * Procedure – locus in quo visits discretionary and required only where boundaries/location are disputed.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Affidavit improperly sworn was expunged; execution valid as appellate rulings deprived applicant of lawful ownership, pending review not an automatic stay.
Land law – execution of decrees – whether decree is executable where appellate courts declared respondent not lawful owner; affidavit formalities – verification and swearing by deponent; effect of pending review on execution – stay required to restrain execution.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
A land court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes that effectively challenge letters of administration; probate court exclusive forum.
* Jurisdiction — scope between Land Division and Probate & Administration Court; whether a land claim that challenges letters of administration is within probate jurisdiction.
* Probate law — challenges to grant of letters of administration and acts done under such grant must be raised in probate court.
* Fraud allegations — do not automatically oust exclusive probate jurisdiction; must be tested in probate proceedings.
* Civil procedure — issues raised: non-joinder of legal personal representative, locus standi, omnibus pleadings, and verification under Order VI Rule 15(2).
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Appeal dismissed: counterclaim sufficiently proved and appellant failed to prove repayment; tribunal's reasons adequate.
* Land/secured lending – mortgage default – enforcement and endorsement of sale of mortgaged property
* Civil procedure – counterclaim – requirement that counterclaims be pleaded and proved; evidential weight of admitted exhibits
* Evidence – burden of proof on claimant to prove repayment; documents annexed but not tendered have no evidential value
* Judgment writing – requirements for statement of case, points for determination, decision and reasons
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Non-joinder of state land authorities in disputes over registered land renders the suit incompetent and it was struck out.
* Land law – Registered/surveyed land – mandatory joinder of Registrar of Titles, Commissioner for Lands and Director of Mapping and Surveys where registration is in issue.
* Civil procedure – Non-joinder of necessary parties renders suit incompetent and prevents effective decree.
* Government Proceedings Act – statutory notice/service requirements (ninety days) when impleading Registrar of Titles or state land authorities.
* Amendment vs striking out – court may require proper procedure for impleading public officers rather than permit informal cure absent statutory compliance.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Reassignment and striking out without adequate reasons violated fair hearing; court quashed post-reassignment proceedings.
Land law – tribunal reassignment; fair hearing and natural justice – requirement to give and record reasons for transfer; BRN backlog sessions – cannot displace fair trial safeguards; competence objections and striking out – amendment and rehearing preferred to dismissal where substantial evidence led; revisional jurisdiction – quashing post-reassignment proceedings.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Appellate court upheld tribunal: contracts held voluntary, coercion claims unproven; appeal dismissed.
* Land law – ownership dispute – transfer in partial satisfaction of debt – admissibility and weight of written agreements.
* Contract law – alleged coercion and undue influence – requirement of contemporaneous evidence and prompt challenge.
* Civil procedure – assessors' opinions – tribunal may depart from assessors with reasons.
* Evidence – adverse inference for failure to call material witness (Hemedi Saidi principle).
* Limitation – distinction between criminal exclusion and civil requirement to promptly challenge impugned contracts.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Tribunal’s failure to frame issues and reconcile conflicting title documents required quashing and retrial.
Land law – title dispute – conflicting documentary evidence – reliance on Certificate of Occupancy – jurisdiction and proper framing of issues – non-joinder of necessary parties (Registrar of Titles, vendor) – anomalies in documentary records – remittal for retrial.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
A mortgagor may institute a summary suit under Order XXXV to seek redemption or discharge of a mortgage.
* Civil Procedure — Order XXXV Rule 1(c) — suits arising out of mortgages — categories: payment, delivery of possession, redemption, retransfer/discharge. * Mortgage law — capacity to sue — mortgagee-only for payment/possession claims; mortgagor may sue under summary procedure for redemption/discharge. * Preliminary objection — pure point of law assessed from the plaint; must dispose of matter if meritorious.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
A consent judgment cannot be challenged by revision; applicants failed to show lack of consent or authority.
Civil procedure – Consent judgment – Jurisdiction to entertain revision – Consent decree equivalent to judgment after full hearing and not open to revision or appeal; remedy is fresh suit where fraud, misrepresentation or lack of authority is alleged – Right to be heard – Representation and ostensible authority.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Ex parte judgment set aside where respondent failed to prove service, protecting the applicant’s constitutional right to be heard.
* Civil procedure – setting aside ex parte judgment – proof of service required (affidavit, registry endorsement, diary entry).
* Constitutional right to be heard – Article 13(6)(a) – outweighs procedural non-compliance where service not proved.
* Order VIII Rule 23 CPC – scheduling orders binding but departure allowed in interest of justice.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
An advocate who did not appear in earlier proceedings cannot competently swear to what transpired in those proceedings.
* Civil procedure – Affidavits – Order XIX Rule 3(1) – Affidavits must be confined to facts within deponent’s personal knowledge; an advocate who did not appear in earlier proceedings cannot competently depone to those proceedings. * Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Competence of affidavit is a pure point of law and may dispose of the matter. * Overriding Objective – Fundamental defects in affidavits are not cured by the Overriding Objective.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Whether the respondent could enforce a settlement deed by execution before the agreed deadline and appealability of execution orders.
* Land law – enforcement of settlement deeds – execution upon default under a settlement deed adopted as Tribunal order. * Civil procedure – appealability – execution orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal are appealable to the High Court (Regulation 24 GN No.174/2003). * Contract law – sanctity of settlement agreements – courts may enforce agreed terms where default occurs. * Procedural fairness – premature execution challenge rejected where deed permits enforcement and default had occurred. * Abuse of process – recurrent baseless applications may justify dismissal and costs. |
20 October 2025 |
|
Court granted a 14-day extension to file a taxation reference, finding sufficient cause and treating misdescription as non-fatal.
* Civil procedure – Extension/enlargement of time – misdescription of statutory provision not fatal where substance clear – overriding objective applies.
* Extension of time – equitable discretionary remedy – sufficient cause required (Lyamuya test).
* Procedural withdrawal with leave to refile and prompt action can constitute sufficient cause; court will not decide merits at extension stage.
* Costs – each party to bear own costs where extension granted.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show prima facie case, irreparable harm or favorable balance for injunction after lawful mortgage sale.
* Civil procedure — Temporary injunction — Atilio v Mbowe test: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience.
* Mortgage law — Sale by mortgagee — mode of sale (tender vs public auction) permitted under Land Act and mortgage deed.
* Evidence — Valuation must be verified by Chief Government Valuer; post‑sale caveat cannot invalidate prior sale.
* Equity — Commercial loss from contractual rights typically compensable by damages; injunction denied where title has vested.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
An appeal filed after 45 days under the Land Disputes Act is incompetent without leave to extend time.
Limitation of actions – Land Disputes Act s.44(2) – forty-five day time limit for appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal; Law of Limitation Act s.19(2) – exclusion of time to obtain judgment copy when computing limitation; proviso to s.44(2) – requirement for leave/extension; Law of Limitation Act s.3(1),(2)(b) – mandatory dismissal of time-barred proceedings; Civil Procedure Code s.95 – re-filing after strike-out does not cure statutory limitation.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Court found instruction fee misallocated under wrong schedule; re-tax under Eleventh Schedule; attendance fees and Order 48 penalty limited.
* Advocates Remuneration Order – Taxation review – error in principle where wrong schedule applied; liquidated sum vs incidental monetary claim.
* Civil procedure – taxation – proper schedule for instruction fees in land disputes (Eleventh Schedule Item 1(k)).
* Appearance – holding brief constitutes legitimate attendance for taxation purposes.
* Order 48 ARO – penal consequence applies to costs of taxation only, not entire taxed bill.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Failure to describe disputed land with sufficient particulars renders ownership claims and decrees unenforceable.
Land description requirements — necessity of measurements, survey map or coordinates; burden of proof in land ownership (s.110 Evidence Act); Rule 3(2)(b) GN No.174/2003 and Order VII r.3 CPC; nemo dat quod non habet and priority of title; unenforceability of decrees lacking specific identification of immovable property. |
20 October 2025 |
|
Court dismissed applicant's challenge to taxation, finding costs properly awarded against the surviving party.
* Advocates Remuneration Order (Order 7) – taxation of costs – variation or setting aside of taxation orders.
* Civil procedure – effect of death/incapacity on parties – taxing costs against the surviving party.
* Costs – principles of taxation – excessiveness and arbitrariness – requirement to show error or impropriety.
* Delay and procedural laches – afterthought applications and failure to raise timely objections.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Heir with letters of administration prevails over purchaser from a vendor without title; eviction of a non-possessor set aside.
Land law – acquisition and root of title; nemo dat quod non habet; admissibility of hearsay (s.62 Evidence Act); possession as prerequisite to eviction; appellate re-evaluation and assessors’ divergence (s.24 Land Disputes Courts Act).
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Applicant granted temporary injunction preserving possession against alleged state reversion pending trial.
Interlocutory injunction – Atilio v Mbowe three-part test – prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience – competing title vs alleged state reversion – preservation of possession pending trial.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Tribunal’s title-transfer order set aside because the bank holding the encumbrance was not joined as a necessary party.
* Land law – Encumbrance and title transfer – nemo dat quod non habet – orders affecting title must account for bank-held collateral.
* Civil procedure – Necessary parties – Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC – bank holding title as collateral must be joined where its rights are directly affected.
* Evidence – Duty to analyze material evidence – failure to evaluate testimony on payment timeline and breach vitiates proceedings.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Wrong citation of law that deprives the court of jurisdiction renders an extension application incompetent and incurable.
Land law / appellate procedure – extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – wrong citation of enabling law (Court of Appeal Rules cited instead of Appellate Jurisdiction Act) – jurisdictional defect – incurable by overriding objective or Article 107A(2)(e) – application incompetent and struck out.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of disputed properties; inconsistent documents and lack of independent witnesses led to dismissal.
* Succession/land law – ownership disputes over properties alleged to have been gifted or sold prior to death – burden of proof on claimant.* Evidence – written instruments (family minutes, sale agreements, handover) must be consistent, attested where necessary, and corroborated by independent witnesses.* Registered title and administrative transfer provide strong evidence of ownership where claimants fail to prove alienation.* Locus standi – claim on behalf of a non-party property owner is incompetent.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
A joint administrator cannot sue alone; suit struck out for lack of locus standi despite being within limitation period.
* Probate and administration – joint administrators – co-administrators must act jointly; unilateral suit by one administrator devoid of locus standi absent exceptional circumstances under s.104.
* Limitation of actions – accrual of cause of action in land recovery suits is when dispossession/trespass occurred, not necessarily date of deceased's death (s.5 LLA).
* Probate practice – limited letters (s.39) require clear evidence; absence of limitation on exhibited letters defeats section 39 objection.
* Procedure – counterclaim is a separate cause of action and is not automatically defeated by defects in the main suit.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Unauthenticated photographs failed to prove respondents wilfully disobeyed an interim order; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – committal for contempt – requirement to prove wilful disobedience of clear and specific court order; Evidence Act s.64(1) – authentication and evidential value of photographs; interim orders restraining allocation or issuance of rights of occupancy – scope and interpretation; burden of proof on applicant in civil contempt applications.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
An unproven holding-brief arrangement and inconsistent affidavits do not establish good cause to set aside dismissal.
Civil procedure – chamber application to set aside dismissal order; sufficiency of affidavits and annexures; proof of good cause for non-appearance; holding-brief arrangements between advocates; duty of litigant to ensure appearance.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Tribunal rightly struck out land suit for non-joinder of probate heirs; Kiswahili rule not retroactively applicable.
* Civil procedure — Non-joinder of necessary parties — Heirs shown in probate inventory as distributed estate are necessary parties to land suit.
* Language of proceedings — GN No. 66/2022 (mandatory Kiswahili) not applicable retroactively to pleadings filed before its commencement.
* Pleadings — Effect of amendment: amended pleadings govern proceedings but earlier pleadings remain on record for reference.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Extension of time refused where alleged illegality was not apparent on record and applicants failed to account for delay.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – exercise of judicial discretion under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – requirement to show sufficient/good cause and account for each day of delay.
* Illegality as ground for extension – must be apparent on the face of the record and shown to have prejudiced the applicant.
* Service by publication, party misdescription and title/survey disputes – factual issues not amounting to apparent illegality where prejudice not demonstrated.
* Alternative remedies – availability of fresh suit or civil procedure remedies relevant to relief sought.
|
16 October 2025 |