|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
Process-server's affidavit was ambiguous and failed to prove service; ex-parte judgment quashed and retrial ordered.
Service of summons — adequacy of process-server's affidavit; Regulation 6(3) and (4) Land Disputes Courts Regulations 2003; proviso to Order V Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code — requirement to name person served and describe manner of service; failure to prove service invalidates ex-parte proceedings; remittal for retrial before a differently constituted tribunal.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Applicant failed to prove land ownership; respondent’s long possession gave title by prescription, appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure – alleged ex‑parte decision – participation and cross‑examination by defendant negates ex‑parte finding. Land law – proof on balance of probabilities – claimant must prove proprietary title. Land law – locus standi – claim based on land cleared by another requires proper legal status. Prescription and limitation – undisturbed occupation for statutory period can confer title (Limitation Act, Cap 89). Evidence – village land allocation claims require cogent proof at trial.
|
13 December 2011 |
|
Applicant's leave application struck out as time‑barred for non‑compliance with 14‑day rule.
Civil procedure — Limitation — Application for leave to appeal to High Court — Rule 43(a), Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 141 R.E.2002 — 14‑day time limit — application filed after 31 days — no application for extension of time — application struck out with costs.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
DLHT judgment lacking issues, findings and reasons is a nullity and must be set aside for fresh hearing.
Land dispute procedure — District Land and Housing Tribunal judgments must state facts, issues, findings and reasons (Reg.20(1)(a)-(d)); failure to consider grounds of appeal or give reasons renders judgment a nullity; appellate duty to analyze evidence and give reasons; remittal for rehearing before different bench.
|
2 December 2011 |
|
Reported
An appeal was quashed because the appellant sued in his personal name without lawful authority to represent the mosque.
Civil procedure – locus standi and capacity to sue – individual suing on behalf of institution without indicating representative capacity is improper; permission to represent required under s.18(2) Land Disputes Courts Act. Land Disputes Courts Act – procedural requirements for representation and consequences of defective party designation – proceedings quashed and set aside under s.43(1)(b). Retrial – matter to be tried de novo in proper parties’ names.
|
1 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Reported
Appellate court affirmed trial tribunal’s land ownership finding and expunged an inadmissible written witness statement.
Land law – ownership dispute – ward tribunal site visit and factual findings – appellate review of credibility and boundaries; Evidence – inadmissibility and expungement of written statement of witness who did not testify; Competence of relative witnesses – credibility assessment; Possession/limitation in land disputes.
|
30 November 2011 |
|
Second appeal dismissed: trial tribunal’s site-inspection findings upheld; non-testifying witness’s written evidence expunged.
Land disputes — Ward Tribunal composition — coram requirement; Evidence — admissibility — written statements of witnesses who did not testify to be expunged; Evidence — competency of relatives — admissible and assessed on credibility; Appellate review — deference to trial tribunal’s site inspection and factual findings; Possession/limitation — continuous family possession favors respondent.
|
30 November 2011 |
|
Reported
The respondent lacked locus standi to sue over primary school land; the local authority is the proper party.
Land law / civil procedure – locus standi – capacity to sue over public primary school land – headteacher/individual lacks standing; proper party is the local authority – proceedings by person lacking locus standi are incompetent and nullity ab initio.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
Whether the appellant’s personal testimony vitiated proceedings after granting a power of attorney to his agent.
Land law – title dispute over urban plot – evidence and credibility. Agency – power of attorney: scope and effect on principal’s personal testimony. Civil procedure – Order III Rules 1 & 2; distinguishing appearance/application by agent from principal testifying. Appeal — appellate court may decide merits where first appellate tribunal set aside proceedings on wrong legal basis.
|
18 November 2011 |
|
Payment to redeem family land does not confer title; payer is entitled only to reimbursement, not ownership.
Land law – family/clan land – redemption versus purchase – payment to redeem does not transfer title; evidence – authenticity of clan minutes; civil procedure – res judicata requires same parties; tribunal composition – presence of village leaders at locus visit does not vitiate proceedings if they do not decide.
|
11 November 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
Reported
Appeal allowed: lack of proof of sale and improper admission of fresh evidence affirmed appellant's title.
Land dispute — proof of sale — credibility of vendor — inadmissibility of fresh evidence on appeal (A.S. Sian) — s.20(3) Land Disputes Courts Act — occupation/trespass and prescription (12 years).
|
30 September 2011 |
|
Reported
Appellants failed to prove valid purchase; eviction upheld due to lack of evidence and credibility flaws.
Land law – proof of title – sale alleged during deceased’s lifetime – necessity of legal representative to transfer title; evidentiary requirement of original sale documents; non-joinder of alleged seller and failure to call material witness; possession as a defence to eviction; procedural irregularity (change of presiding officer) not vitiating where no prejudice shown.
|
23 September 2011 |
|
Tribunal validly refused costs after stating reasons under s.30(2) CPC in a boundary-encroachment dispute.
Civil procedure – costs – requirement to give reasons where costs do not follow the event – Section 30(2) Civil Procedure Code – adequacy of reasons stated by Tribunal. Appellate review – power to cure procedural omission where reasons absent – not required where tribunal states explicit reasons. Land law – boundary dispute – encroachment, absence of beacon, evidence of prior consultation/concession.
|
23 September 2011 |
|
Court remits boundary dispute to Ward Tribunal to recall vendor, produce locus sketch and determine alleged encroachment.
Land law – boundary dispute – alleged 3‑ft encroachment by neighbouring owner by creation of a pathway. Procedure – failure of tribunals to consider material witness evidence (vendor) – remittal for further fact‑finding. Evidence – locus in quo inspection and requirement for a sketch map to resolve boundary uncertainty. Remedy – re‑summon vendor, fresh locus evidence and report to higher tribunal only if further appeal lodged.
|
23 September 2011 |
| August 2011 |
|
|
Appeal struck out for defective grounds; appeal timely due to exclusion for time taken obtaining judgment copies; leave to refile.
Land procedure — appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal — requirement for memorandum of appeal under Order XXXIX CPC where law is silent; grounds must be concise and non-argumentative — time limits and exclusion for period in obtaining copies under section 19 Law of Limitation Act — effect of Written Laws (Misc. Amendments) Act 2010 on "Land Division" heading.
|
5 August 2011 |
|
Reported
Appeal struck out for defective, argumentative grounds; appeal timely due to section 19 exclusion; leave granted to refile subject to limitation.
Civil procedure — appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal — form of appeal (Memorandum v Petition) — Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC — grounds must be concise and non‑argumentative; Limitation — section 19 Law of Limitation Act — time excluded while obtaining copies; Constitutional/Statutory interpretation — effect of Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2010 on "Land Division" and existence of High Court Land Division/registries.
|
5 August 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
Failure to plead substantive value of land claim deprived the High Court of pecuniary jurisdiction; suit struck out with costs.
Land law – jurisdiction – pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court under section 37 Land Disputes Courts Act – substantive relief (subject-matter value) determines jurisdiction, not general damages – inadequacy of pleadings as ground to strike out suit.
|
22 July 2011 |
|
Additional preliminary objections require leave; affidavit verification was adequate and a pending counterclaim does not bar leave to appeal.
Land procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – preliminary objections – addition of objections without leave – affidavit sufficiency and verification – paragraphs alleging points of law allowable – pending counterclaim not a bar to leave (Mukisa principle) – dominus litis.
|
21 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld equal division of clan grazing land where evidence showed no prior allocation.
Land law – clan or customary land – communal grazing ground – inheritance and succession – proof of prior distribution; appellate review of tribunal’s factual findings and division order.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution where an unauthorised spouse represented an absent appellant without proof of illness.
Civil procedure – appearance – personal appearance, advocate, or recognised agent (Order III Rules 1–2, Cap.33; s.46 Land Disputes Courts Act). Representation – spouse without power of attorney not a recognised agent. Proof of illness – medical certificate required to justify non-appearance. Court powers – dismissal for want of prosecution/inherent powers to discourage undue adjournments (s.95 Cap.33; relevant case law).
|
7 June 2011 |
| March 2011 |
|
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise interlocutory tribunal orders; closure of applicant’s case was properly upheld.
• Judicial review/revision – jurisdiction – appeals and revisions against interlocutory orders of subordinate tribunals barred to the High Court under amended appellate provisions.
• Procedural fairness – premature closure of case – test for allowing additional witnesses: purpose of testimony and reasons for prior omission.
• Civil procedure – refusal to recall witnesses justified where applicant’s conduct suggests delay tactics.
|
11 March 2011 |