|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2020 |
|
|
Plaintiff failed to prove breach of the sale agreement or entitlement to re-transfer; suit dismissed for lack of proof.
Civil procedure – burden of proof – plaintiff must prove allegations on a balance of probabilities even in ex parte hearings; Contract law – sale agreement and addendum – contradictions in documentary terms and discrepancies in asserted purchase price undermine proof of breach and entitlement to specific performance or recovery of land; Evidence – failure to produce original documents or loss report weakens case.
|
30 November 2020 |
|
Allocation under a land regularization project does not extinguish prior occupiers' rights without prompt and adequate compensation.
Land law – government land regularization/allocation; effect on prior occupiers' rights where compensation not paid; bona fide purchaser defence; entitlement to vacant possession, damages and costs.
|
30 November 2020 |
|
Plaintiff permitted to withdraw and refile but must pay costs; waiver and dismissal/bar to refile denied.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of suit — Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) — Leave to refile — Costs follow the event; refusal to waive costs — Order XVII, Rule 3 (dismissal for failure to produce evidence) and Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) (bar to re-institution) considered and not granted.
|
30 November 2020 |
|
Dismissal entered at a mention was set aside and the suit restored due to improper procedure and sufficient excuse for non-appearance.
Civil procedure — Order IX r.8 (Cap 33) — dismissal where defendant appears and plaintiff absent; mention is a practice not a statutory stage — dismissal at mention improper; application to set aside dismissal — restoration of suit where sufficient explanation for non-appearance and procedural defect in dismissal.
|
30 November 2020 |
|
Sale of mortgaged land nullified for failure to serve mandatory notice and lack of registered transfer permitting purchaser protection.
Land law – Mortgagee’s power of sale – mandatory pre‑sale notice under s.127 Land Act – validity of service; Addendum effect on prior notice; Bona fide purchaser protection under s.135 requires registration under Land Registration Act (s.51(1)); Sale nullified for non‑compliance.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
The registrar properly refused to rectify title absent a tribunal declaration of ownership; the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Land law – rectification of register of titles – effect of DLHT dismissal for want of prosecution – absence of declaration of ownership – purchaser for value not party to proceedings – factual disputes unsuitable for rectification application.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
Registrar rightly refused rectification where DLHT dismissal did not declare appellant owner and subsequent purchaser was not party to proceedings.
Land law – rectification of land register – whether tribunal dismissal for want of prosecution constitutes declaration of ownership – effect of subsequent transfer to a purchaser not party to original proceedings.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
Awaiting a judgment copy and counsel’s year‑end vacation can constitute sufficient cause for extension of time to appeal.
Land law – extension of time to appeal under s.38(1) Land Dispute Courts Act; awaiting copy of judgment as sufficient cause; year‑end/court vacation as reasonable explanation; Mlav Kimaro v Halfan Mohamed (1995) TLR 202 relied upon.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
Applicant's presence at court but failure to hear case called justified setting aside dismissal and restoring the appeal.
Civil procedure – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – whether failure to hear case called amounts to sufficient cause – evidence of presence in court – promptness in filing application – restoration of appeal.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
An appeal filed more than three years after judgment without extension is time-barred and dismissed with costs.
Limitation of appeals – appeal filed outside statutory period – absence of extension order – late receipt of judgment does not justify delay without proof of timely request – court may raise limitation suo motu.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
Extension of time application struck out for being brought under wrong statutory provisions; proper remedy lies under the Limitation Act.
Extension of time to appeal — improper reliance on Order XIV Rules 1, 2 and 7 of the CPC — application incompetent — correct remedy under s.14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act — preliminary objection — defective affidavit.
|
27 November 2020 |
|
Delay in filing a first appeal caused by late supply of judgment copies justified extension of time for the applicant.
Extension of time – section 41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act – sufficiency of cause – delay in procuring judgment and decree. Evidence – uncontroverted affidavit facts – evidential weight of unopposed factual deposition. Civil procedure – first appeal – necessity of possessing judgment and decree for lodging appeal.
|
26 November 2020 |
|
Late and non‑compliant defence was expunged, and appellant's uncontroverted evidence established ownership.
Land law – pleadings – Written Statement of Defence filed out of time – effect of late filing and amendment; competence of pleadings as to language – Section 32, Land Disputes Courts Act; effect of amendment on prior pleadings; failure to file competent defence results in defendant being out of court; proof of ownership by long occupation and neighbour corroboration.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Plaintiff allowed to withdraw with leave to refile, but defendants awarded costs; refiling limited by limitation law.
Civil procedure – Order XXIII Rule 1(2)(b) CPC – Withdrawal of suit with liberty to refile – Costs follow event – Re-institution subject to limitation law.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Withdrawal of suit allowed with leave to refile; defendants awarded costs; refiling subject to limitation law.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of suit under Order XXIII r.1(2)(b) – costs follow the event – leave to refile granted subject to law of limitation.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Court set aside tribunal judgment for defective pleadings and ordered retrial after amendment and limitation/res judicata check.
Civil procedure – pleadings – requirement to plead date of accrual of cause of action (Order VII r1(e), CPC) – failure to plead date of trespass prevents determination of limitation. Civil procedure – description of immovable property – mandatory requirement (Order VII r3, CPC) – inadequate description renders suit incompetent. Res judicata – identity of subject matter requires sufficiently particular pleadings to compare proceedings. Revision – High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under s.43(1) Land Disputes Courts Act to set aside tribunal proceedings for procedural incompetence and order retrial.
|
24 November 2020 |
|
Land suit quashed for inadequate pleadings as to property description and failure to plead date of accrual of trespass.
Land law — pleadings for immovable property — requirement for sufficient description of the property (Order VII r3 CPC); Limitation — accrual of cause of action for trespass must be pleaded (Order VII r1(e) CPC); Res judicata — effect of prior dismissal/striking out and need for comparable subject matter; Revisional jurisdiction — power to set aside incompetent tribunal proceedings for failure to comply with mandatory pleading requirements.
|
24 November 2020 |
|
Application for extension dismissed: court functus officio; registry omission cured.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – functus officio; extension of time to file revision in same court already having determined appeal is incompetent; procedural defect of omitting specific registry is technical and curable under overriding-objective/oxygen rule.
|
22 November 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to prove existence and terms of alleged oral borehole agreement; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – contract – oral versus written agreement – proof of existence and terms of alleged oral contract for borehole proceeds. Evidence – annexures to pleadings are not evidence unless properly admitted at trial. Local government – capacity to contract – alleged lack of authority of local authority signatories irrelevant where claimant relies on an oral agreement with an individual.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Appeal dismissed: claimant failed to prove alleged oral borehole agreement; annexures to pleadings are not evidence.
Land law – contract — oral versus written agreement; burden of proof to establish existence and terms of an oral contract. Evidence — annexures to pleadings are not evidence; documentary evidence must be formally adduced. Local government law — capacity to contract under Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act not determinative where claim is based on an alleged oral agreement. Appeal — appellate court will not overturn factual finding where primary failure was proof by the claimant.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
The applicant’s duplicate extension application constituted an abuse of court process and was struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – abuse of court process; forum shopping – duplication of extension applications for appeal processes. Appellate procedure – extension of time to apply for leave to appeal – interplay with pending application for extension to lodge notice of appeal; correct time limit is 30 days from lodging notice of appeal.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted due to registry misplacement and prompt prosecution of prior application.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under s.41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act – requirement of sufficient cause. Delay caused by misplacement of court registry documents can constitute sufficient cause for extension. Diligent prosecution of an earlier extension application and prompt refiling support a finding of sufficient cause. Alleged illegality (locus standi) raised as part of grounds for extension.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
A four‑year delay was inordinate; alleged illegality and a misplaced file did not justify extension of time.
Extension of time – sufficiency of cause – inordinate delay of ~40 months – awaiting judgment/ proceedings and alleged misplaced court file not proven. Illegality – assessors' opinions and locus standi – not apparent on face of record and cannot alone justify extension of time. Proof required from registry or court officers where court file misplacement is alleged.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Unexplained, inordinate delay and non-apparent illegality do not justify extension of time to appeal.
Extension of time – sufficient cause – applicant must account for each day of delay – inordinate unexplained delay fatal to application; Illegality as sufficient cause – must be apparent on the face of the record; assessors – absence or non-participation not established on face of judgment.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Revision dismissed as time-barred and improperly brought under the Civil Procedure Code instead of the Land Disputes Courts Act.
Land law – Revision from District Land and Housing Tribunal – governed by s.43(1) Land Disputes Courts Act. Limitation – Law of Limitation Act, Part III item 21 fixes 60 days for revision applications. Procedure – Substance over form: cannot evade time bar by couching substantive attack as execution challenge. Application dismissed as time-barred and brought under wrong statutory provision.
|
16 November 2020 |
|
A revision under the Land Disputes Act cannot attack interlocutory tribunal rulings; application struck out as premature under s79 CPC.
Land law — Revisional jurisdiction under Cap. 216 — Interplay with Civil Procedure Code — Section 79(2) CPC bars revision/appeal against interlocutory decisions — Section 51(1)(b) Cap. 216 does not displace this rule — Premature revision dismissed for abuse of process.
|
16 November 2020 |
|
Extension granted because trial judgment contained an apparent legal anomaly requiring correction by revision.
Land law – extension of time under Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – requirements per Lyamuya factors – illegality as ground for extension – illegality must be apparent on the face of the record – assessors’ non-participation and s.23(3) Land Disputes Courts Act – judgment must finally and conclusively determine controversy.
|
13 November 2020 |
|
Plaintiff awarded compensation for 16 unpaid square metres at paid rate; commercial-rate interest denied for lack of pleading.
Land acquisition – compensation – measurement by locus in quo – unpaid area entitlement; valuation categories and burden of proof for higher rates; departure from pleadings bars new claims (Order VII r.7 CPC); pre-judgment (commercial) interest must be pleaded; post-judgment interest under s.29 CPC.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
A prior probate court judgment conclusively determining a land sale ousts a tribunal’s jurisdiction; tribunal judgment nullified.
Evidence — judicial notice of prior judgment under Evidence Act s59(1)(d). Relevance of prior decisions — sections 42 and 43 Evidence Act; probate determinations as conclusive in subsequent proceedings. Jurisdiction — prior probate decision ousts tribunal's competence to re-adjudicate same issue. Revisional power — High Court nullifies tribunal proceedings under Land Disputes Courts Act s43(1)(b).
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Court lacks jurisdiction to extend limitation period; only the Minister may extend time under the Law of Limitations Act.
Law of Limitations – Extension of time to institute suit – Jurisdiction of court versus ministerial power – Statutory procedure for extending limitation periods; Civil procedure – application under sections 14(1) and 95 – limits of judicial authority to extend statutory limitation periods.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Procedural irregularity in Ward Tribunal composition did not occasion failure of justice; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land Disputes – Ward Tribunal composition and quorum; application of Ward Tribunals Act via Section 10(2) Land Disputes Courts Act; res judicata—requirements of same parties, cause and final determination; awards of special and general damages—proof and tribunal discretion; Section 45—appeal cannot be reversed for procedural irregularity absent failure of justice.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
The applicant's subsequent suit was barred by res judicata and the appeal was dismissed.
Civil procedure – res judicata – identity of subject matter – subsequent suit barred where issue previously directly and substantially decided. Res judicata binds privies and persons claiming under prior parties. Ward Tribunal proceedings quashed where matter already determined.
|
10 November 2020 |
|
The applicant’s subsequent land claim was barred by res judicata as it repeated a previously decided dispute.
Land — Ownership dispute over building — Res judicata — Prior determination barred subsequent suit — Effect of res judicata on parties and privies — Ward Tribunal proceedings quashed.
|
10 November 2020 |
|
Appellants' armed robbery conviction upheld: proof, confession admissible, common intention found; recent-possession doctrine misapplied but appeal dismissed.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Ingredients: theft plus use or threat of violence — proof by victim and medical evidence. Evidence — Confession — Admissibility: voluntariness objection must be raised at trial; unobjected confessions may stand. Evidence — Co-accused statements — May be used against others if corroborated. Criminal law — Common intention (s.23 Penal Code) — inferred from joint actions and conduct. Evidence — Recent possession doctrine — requires accused to be found in possession; inapplicable where property is with a third party. Procedure — Non-production of arresting officers immaterial where arrest is undisputed (memorandum of agreed facts).
|
9 November 2020 |
|
A revision that quashed the trial judgment rendered the subsequent appeal functus officio; the High Court struck out the appeal.
Land law – appeal and revision – revision setting aside trial judgment – effect on pending appeal – functus officio – revisional jurisdiction under section 43 of the Land Disputes Courts Act – right to be heard/impleadment of third party.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
High Court dismisses appeal and revises appellate judgment, striking out the appeal as functus officio after revisional order.
Land law – appeals and revision – revisional proceedings setting aside trial tribunal judgment – functus officio doctrine – duty to stay or strike out appeal – revision jurisdiction under section 43 Land Disputes Courts Act – right to be heard/impleading third party.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Failure to issue a valid 30-day statutory notice to the village council deprived the court of jurisdiction; suit struck out.
Local government — statutory 30 days' notice to sue — addressee and content requirements under Cap. 287 — letter to village chairman insufficient — lack of notice deprives court of jurisdiction (Lyamuya principle).
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Wrong citation of the enabling provision renders an extension application incompetent; application struck out with costs.
Land Disputes Courts Act — extension of time to appeal — correct provision for appeals from DLHT exercising appellate jurisdiction is section 38. Procedural law — citation of wrong enabling provision — incurable defect rendering application incompetent. Civil procedure — competence of application — when court is properly moved.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Where appeal originates from a Ward Tribunal a High Court certificate, not leave, is required; application struck out.
Appeals — Leave versus certificate — Where appeal to Court of Appeal originates from Ward Tribunal, section 47(3) Land Disputes Courts Act requires a High Court certificate on point of law, not leave under Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Time limits — Rule 45(a) Court of Appeal Rules (GN. 362/2017) allows 30 days for applications for leave to appeal. Procedural defects — Incorrect citation of revised edition year is a minor irregularity and not automatically fatal. Affidavit formalities — verification clause defects may be raised but substantive legal misjoinder is decisive.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Applicant's unexplained eighty-day delay after learning of dismissal failed to establish "good cause" for extension of time.
Limitation of actions – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – extension of time – requirement to show "good cause" and provide relevant material to justify delay. Procedural irregularity alleged (non-notification of dismissal date) – insufficient where applicant delays further without explanation. Unexplained delay – eighty days between notice of dismissal and filing extension application fatal to claim for extension.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
The plaintiff’s fresh suit challenging execution of a prior decree is barred by section 38(1) and was struck out with costs.
Civil Procedure — Execution of decree — Questions arising out of execution cannot be entertained in a separate fresh suit — Section 38(1) Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33 R.E.2019); Preliminary objections — plaint discloses cause of action tied to execution; Suit struck out; Functus officio.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
The overriding-objective principle cannot cure a review application filed out of time where no extension was sought.
Procedural law – Time bar: review application filed out of the 30-day period is time-barred; Overriding-objective principle: cannot be used to circumvent statutory time limits where extension remedy exists; Civil procedure – extension of time: applicant must apply for extension if delayed; Finality and execution: courts will protect respondent’s reliance on finality of decisions and ongoing execution proceedings.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Appellant failed to prove disputed plots were part of the deceased's estate; respondents’ allocation evidence preferred.
Land law – ownership of disputed plots – burden of proof under section 110(1) Evidence Act; allocation evidence and family meeting minutes; administrator capacity – omission in title not fatal (Section 45, Land Disputes Courts Act); appellate review of factual findings.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Extension of time granted where delay resulted from legal aid provider’s inability to prepare submissions; timetable rescheduled.
Civil Procedure - extension of time under Sections 93 and 95 CPC - delay caused by legal aid provider's unavailability - excusable delay - rescheduling of written submissions timetable.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
A third party must first pursue objectional proceedings under Order XXI before suing to challenge an attachment.
Civil procedure – Attachment in execution – Objectional proceedings under Order XXI r.57 CPC – Effect of Order XXI r.62 – Third party challenging attachment must first pursue objectional proceedings; suit filed before determination is premature.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Court granted a six‑month interim injunction to preserve the status quo in a disputed ownership of land.
Land law – temporary injunction – preservation of status quo in competing title claims; requirements: triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; uninvestigated forgery allegations do not negate a triable issue.
|
5 November 2020 |
|
Alleged illegality must be specifically shown and delay accounted for; bare assertions do not justify extension of time.
Land appeal — extension of time to appeal — applicant must account for each day of delay; allegation of illegality must be specific and established; mere assertion in affidavit insufficient; unexplained delay fatal to extension application.
|
4 November 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to particularise alleged illegality and did not adequately account for delay; appeal dismissed.
Extension of time – requirement to account for each day of delay; Illegality as ground for extension – must be apparent on record or clearly particularised and demonstrated (Ministry of Defence v Valambhia); Bare assertion of illegality is insufficient; Technical/execution-related delay does not excuse unexplained delay.
|
4 November 2020 |