|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2021 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: easement dispute properly before Ward Tribunal; assessors’ opinions considered; joinder of Attorney General unnecessary.
Land law – easement/right of way (uchochoro) – Ward Tribunal jurisdiction – assessors’ opinion under s.24 Land Disputes Courts Act – joinder of Attorney General – representative suit – requirement of valuation for monetary jurisdiction.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Appeal dismissed: tribunals properly found a public footpath easement existed; assessors' opinions lawfully considered.
Land law – easement/right of way (uchochoro) – whether disputed path belongs to landowner. Civil procedure – right to be heard – attendance and hearing of witnesses at Ward Tribunal. Tribunal composition – role and requirement of assessors and obligation under section 24 of the Land Disputes Courts Act. Joinder and public ownership – when Municipal Council/Attorney General must be joined; afterthought objections. Locus standi – individual suit for protection of a pedestrian easement versus representative suit.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
District tribunal lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the respondent’s higher estimated value was unproven and the sale price was lower.
Land dispute — Pecuniary jurisdiction — District Land and Housing Tribunal’s monetary limits — Estimated value in pleadings versus factual contract price — Requirement of valuation report to prove higher value — Jurisdiction must be determined first.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Court refused extension to file review, finding alleged illegality and prospects of success unproven.
Limitation of actions – extension of time under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – exercise of judicial discretion; illegality as ground for extension; overwhelming prospects of success. Statutory remedy for out-of-time appeals – s.3 Law of Limitation Act – dismissal not striking out. Competence of review where proceedings originated from Ward Tribunal; diligence and accounting for delay.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Extension of time to seek leave to appeal granted due to delayed supply of copies and advocates’ negligence.
Extension of time – whether sufficient cause shown; late supply of certified copies and advocate’s negligence as grounds for extension; alleged illegality in impugned ruling as potential ground for extension of time.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
The respondent lacked proof of appointment as administrator, so the tribunal's judgment was quashed for lack of locus to sue.
Land law — Locus standi — Administrator of deceased estate must tender letter/certificate of administration to sue — Death certificate or clan minutes insufficient — Failure to prove appointment vitiates proceedings; appellate court quashes tribunal decision.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
An appellate tribunal’s suo motu determination of ownership without hearing parties is a nullity; Ward Tribunal’s ownership finding stands.
Land law — appellate jurisdiction — appellate tribunal’s suo motu determination of ownership — right to be heard (audi alteram partem) — decision rendered without hearing is nullity — Ward Tribunal’s ownership finding preserved.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Alleged procedural defects in a Ward Tribunal site visit did not vitiate its findings; trespass claim was not time-barred.
Land law — Ward Tribunal locus in quo — procedural irregularity — alleged member acting as witness — adequacy of site-visit record — accrual of cause of action for limitation — appellate interference with concurrent tribunal findings.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Revocation for failure to develop was lawful; the respondent holds title and the applicant's claim is dismissed.
Land law – Revocation of right of occupancy for failure to develop – Compliance with Land Act sections 45, 48, 49 – Notice, 90‑day period and Gazette publication; Burden of proof on claimant under Evidence Act s.110; Allocation following lawful revocation.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Statutory revocation for failure to develop, properly notified and published, rendered the applicant's title invalid.
Land law – revocation of right of occupancy for failure to develop – compliance with ss.45, 48 and 49 of the Land Act – evidentiary burden under s.110 Evidence Act; Gazette publication and notice as validating revocation.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
High Court struck out land suit as incompetent due to different subject matter, parties and improper forum; amendments denied.
Land law — jurisdiction and competence; Order XXI Rule 62 — fresh suit must be in same court and involve same subject matter/parties; Order VI Rule 17 — limits of amendment; Order VII Rule 10(1) — returning plaint; striking out for incompetence.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Unstamped investment agreement inadmissible; plaintiff failed to prove breach, ownership or entitlement to damages.
Stamp Duty Act — unstamped instruments inadmissible in evidence; burden of proof on plaintiff in civil claims; certified copy of title insufficient where original is missing and no proof of trace/recovery; failure to prove contract or breach defeats claims for ownership and damages.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Extension refused where alleged "illegality" was statutory dismissal of a time‑barred appeal, not an error on the face of record.
Civil procedure – extension of time – s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – discretionary relief requiring good cause (accounting for delay, diligence, illegality). Limitation law – s.3 Law of Limitation Act – dismissal is the statutory remedy for out‑of‑time appeals; not striking out. Review – alleged illegality and overwhelming chances of success do not justify extension absent established illegality.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Omission to record and consider assessors’ opinions renders a district land tribunal judgment null, warranting retrial before a differently constituted tribunal.
Land law / procedure – District Land and Housing Tribunal – mandatory constitution and participation of at least two assessors – requirement to record and consider assessors’ written opinions (Reg 19(2); ss.23–24 Land Disputes Courts Act). Civil evidence – relevance of sale agreements and neighbours’ identification in proving ownership of unregistered land (raised but not decided due to procedural irregularity). Remedy – nullification of tribunal decision and retrial de novo where assessors’ opinions are not properly recorded.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Matrimonial home cannot be validly mortgaged without proved spousal consent; defective consent renders mortgage void.
Matrimonial home — requirement of spousal consent for sale/lease/mortgage — validity of spouse consent — evidence and verification under Land Act and Mortgage Financing legislation; mortgage void ab initio if consent not properly procured.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Applicant’s matrimonial house found to be matrimonial and mortgage defective for lack of valid spouse consent, but suit dismissed for failure to prove reliefs.
Family law – matrimonial home – requirement of spouse consent for sale, lease or mortgage – Law of Marriage Act s.59 and Land Act/Mortgage Financing provisions. Evidence – validity of spouse consent – signature discrepancies, failure to call preparer of consent. Property law – mortgage of matrimonial home void ab initio where spouse consent absent or defective. Civil procedure – burden of proof on balance of probabilities; failure to prove reliefs leads to dismissal.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
Applicant failed to prove alleged fraudulent transfer; mortgage and auction were lawful and the suit was dismissed.
Land law – Alleged fraudulent transfer of Certificate of Title – burden and standard of proof for fraud in civil proceedings. Mortgage and banking law – Validity and enforceability of loan facility and mortgage documents; sanctity of contract. Sale by auction – Lawful exercise of bank’s rights under Land Act s.126; protection of bona fide purchaser for value. Civil procedure – Parties bound by pleadings; weight and credibility of witness evidence.
|
29 September 2021 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; mortgage and subsequent auction sale held lawful, suit dismissed.
Land — Alleged fraudulent transfer of title — Burden of proof on claimant to prove theft/fraud — Sanctity of contract and enforceability of mortgage — Lawful sale on default — Protection of bona fide purchaser for value.
|
29 September 2021 |
|
An appeal against execution of a consent decree is incompetent because consent decrees are not appealable under section 70(3).
Land law – Execution of judgment – Consent decree – Appealability – Section 70(3), Civil Procedure Code (Cap.33 [R.E.2019]) – Execution orders arising from consent decrees are not appealable; ownership of property in execution and procedural fairness issues not decided when appeal is incompetent.
|
29 September 2021 |
|
Limitation period must consider accrual and statutory exclusions; encroachment post-death kept suit within time.
Land law – Limitation of actions – Accrual of cause of action for estate claims – application of sections 9(1) and 35 read with sections 24(1)/25(1) of the Law of Limitation Act; trespass/encroachment after death; remittal for merits.
|
29 September 2021 |
|
Applicants failed to prove ownership or adverse possession; respondent not a trespasser; suit dismissed without costs.
Land law – ownership v. licence: building frames under branch-issued application forms does not transfer title; Adverse possession – peaceful occupation against a known owner under licence/agreement does not establish ownership; Pleadings – parties bound by pleaded case; Survey evidence – measurements alone do not confer title.
|
29 September 2021 |
|
A decree lacking sufficient description of land is non-executable; execution orders beyond the decree were quashed.
Land law – Execution of decree – Decree must contain sufficient description of immovable property (Order XX Rules 6(1) & 9 CPC) – Execution cannot exceed what is decreed – Revisional jurisdiction to correct errors material to merits causing injustice.
|
28 September 2021 |
|
House built within statutory road reserve; demolition lawful and plaintiff not entitled to compensation.
Land law – road reserve encroachment; Highway Ordinance/Road Act road‑reserve width (121.5m) – validity of demolition notices; trespasser’s lack of entitlement to compensation; requirement of Chief Government Valuer approval for valuation reports.
|
28 September 2021 |
|
Building erected within statutory road reserve: demolition lawful and trespasser not entitled to compensation.
Road reserve — statutory width (121.5m) — building within reserve; Demolition notices — 7‑day reminder vs 30‑day notice; Trespass — occupier within road reserve not entitled to compensation; Valuation report — requirement of Chief Government Valuer's approval.
|
28 September 2021 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear extension of time application once a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal was pending.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction – effect of lodging a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal – High Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. Civil procedure – preliminary objection – competence of proceedings – jurisdictional objection may be raised at any stage. Civil procedure – striking out incompetent applications – distinction between striking out and dismissal.
|
28 September 2021 |
|
Appellant failed to prove adverse possession; fresh documents refused on appeal; appeal dismissed and costs awarded.
Land law – adverse possession – permissive or consensual occupation is not adverse; Appellate procedure – fresh evidence on appeal disallowed absent good reasons; Civil procedure – burden of proof on party asserting title; Jurisdiction – ward tribunal competent on unregistered land; Non‑joinder – Municipal Council not a necessary party where land unregistered.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove customary ownership of un-surveyed land; defendants' sale and occupation evidence prevailed and counterclaim succeeded.
Land law – Village Land Act – customary tenure – proof of customary ownership requires evidence of applicable customary rules and continuous occupation; kitambulisho cha mkulima insufficient alone; sale agreements, tax records and long occupation can establish ownership; counterclaim for declared ownership of parcel granted.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
Failure to properly record and reassemble after locus in quo visit vitiated tribunal proceedings; retrial ordered.
Land procedure – assessors' opinions – written opinions read in court and chairman may depart with reasons. Evidence – locus in quo – court must record observations, reassemble and afford parties opportunity to comment; failure vitiates proceedings. Civil procedure – miscarriage of justice – procedural irregularity in recording locus in quo justifies quashing judgment and ordering retrial.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
Appeal dismissed: chamber application was omnibus and incompetent; applicant should have refiled a proper application at the Tribunal.
Land procedure – Chamber application – Omnibus/incompetent application – Combining extension of time (Law of Limitation Act s.14(1)) and investigation (CPC Order XXI rr.98–99) – When prayers must be related to be joined – Strike out vs refiling – Appeal dismissed.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
A subsequent land suit is res sub judice where the same parties and ownership issues are pending on appeal.
Civil Procedure – res sub judice – section 8 CPC – subsequent suit raising same ownership dispute barred where earlier suit pending on appeal. Civil Procedure – execution matters – section 38(1) CPC inapplicable where no execution proceedings exist before executing court. Remedies – on finding res sub judice court should order maintenance of status quo pending appeal.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
Application for extension and restoration dismissed for failure to account delay and show apparent illegality.
Civil procedure — extension of time — discretionary remedy — applicant must account for each day of delay and show sufficient cause. Civil procedure — restoration of struck-out proceedings — applicant must show acceptable justification and diligence. Appellate practice — alleged illegalities must be apparent on the face of the record to justify extension of time. Evidence — unsupported or afterthought grounds (transport, financial difficulty) are insufficient for extension or restoration.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
Objections to a decree (variance or payment) are premature at execution; proper remedy is to set aside the ex parte judgment.
Execution proceedings – limits of executing court; Remedy to challenge ex parte judgment is setting aside, not execution stage; Tribunal Chairman’s competence to hear execution under tribunal regulations; Legal aid certificate exempts from court fees; Objection at execution as abuse of process.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
The applicant's unexplained six-year delay and lack of evidence failed to justify an extension of time.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Applicant must show sufficient cause and account for each day of delay. Limitation – Item 21 Part III Law of Limitation Act: 60‑day period to apply to set aside judgment and decree. Alleged illegality/non‑joinder – Generally must be raised promptly; cannot alone excuse long unexplained delay. Affidavit practice – Advocate may depose only to matters within personal knowledge; unsupported assertions are defective.
|
27 September 2021 |
|
A defective affidavit verification clause is incurable by overriding objective and warrants striking out with costs.
Civil procedure – Affidavit verification – Order VI r.15(2) CPC – Failure to specify by paragraph which facts are from personal knowledge or information believed to be true. Overriding objective principle – Cannot be applied to cure mandatory procedural requirements foundational to pleadings. Remedy – Defective verification clause renders the pleading bad in law and warrants striking out with costs.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Leave to withdraw and re-file denied for failure to show a formal defect or sufficient grounds.
Civil Procedure – Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC – Withdrawal of suit with leave to re-file – requirement of formal defect or sufficient grounds; Finality of litigation – afterthought withdrawals and failure to prosecute; Costs – parties to bear own costs where leave denied.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Whether a tribunal may grant an unpleaded transfer of a co-owner’s share to satisfy an unlawful sale.
Land law – sale of jointly owned land – forged instruments and lack of co-owners’ consent – buyer not bona fide purchaser; Procedure – assessors’ absence — curable irregularity; Civil procedure – reliefs must follow pleadings — tribunal exceeded pleadings by ordering transfer of co-owner’s share as unpleaded relief; Execution — mode of recovery is for execution process.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Revision application dismissed as time-barred for unexplained delay beyond the court-ordered filing deadline.
Land law – Revision – time bar – extension of time – computation of filing period and accountability for delay. Civil procedure – preliminary objection – incompetence for being filed out of time. Filing practice – proof of tendering documents to registry and evidentiary burden to account for delay.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
An interlocutory ex parte order is not subject to revision; the proper remedy is an application to set it aside.
Civil procedure – Revision – interlocutory and ex parte orders – Section 79(2) Civil Procedure Code – Revision not competent against interlocutory order; remedy is application to set aside ex parte decision; jurisdictional objection to be raised after setting aside interlocutory order or on appeal.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Revision against an interlocutory ex parte ward tribunal order is incompetent; remedy is to set aside the ex parte order.
Revision - Competency of revision applications against interlocutory/ex parte orders; Ex parte orders - remedy is setting aside, not revision; Civil Procedure Code s.79(2) - bar on revision of interlocutory decisions; Jurisdiction - may be raised anytime but proper procedural steps required; Natural justice - allegations of being condemned unheard cannot bypass interlocutory-procedure rules.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Application to withdraw and re-file to join parties denied for lack of formal defect or sufficient grounds.
Civil procedure — Withdrawal of suit — Order XXIII Rule 1(1),(2),(3) CPC — withdrawal with liberty to re-file requires a formal defect or other sufficient grounds — prior leave to amend not utilized — abuse of process — principle of finality in litigation — joinder of parties — costs.
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Court granted extension to file a notice of appeal, finding the delay technical and the application timely after a struck-out appeal.
Extension of time – discretion to grant extension – factors: length of delay, reasons, prejudice, prospects of success; Procedural default – Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Rule 90(1) & (2) – requirement to include service evidence of request for certified records; Computation of time – time reckoned from striking out of prior appeal; Applicability of overriding objective where delay is technical.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Applicant’s Bill of Costs was timely because time ran from the correcting Registrar’s refile order, not the earlier order.
Civil procedure – taxation of costs – computation of time for filing a Bill of Costs – time runs from correcting Registrar order granting leave to refile, not from earlier complied-with order – wrongful dismissal for being time-barred.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Illegality apparent on the face of the record (jurisdictional defect) can justify extending time for the applicant to appeal.
Land law — extension of time to appeal — judicial discretion — illegality as sufficient cause — jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of the record — Ward Tribunal pecuniary limits.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Failure to prove improper service or raise new grounds below defeats extension to set aside ex parte judgment.
Land law – ex parte judgment – extension of time to set aside – service by substitution (affixation) and publication – raising new grounds on appeal – requirement for documentary proof of absence abroad – Land Disputes Courts Regulations 2003 Reg.19(1).
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Court expunged submissions filed by an advocate without a valid practising certificate but preserved preliminary objections to be reargued; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Land law – preliminary objections – time limitation and cause of action; non-joinder of necessary parties; adequacy of land description; advocacy rules – validity of written submissions filed by advocate without valid practising certificate; procedural effect of grace period on filings.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
An appeal struck out as time-barred bars returning to the same court later to seek an extension of time.
Civil procedure – extension of time – appeal struck out as time-barred – finality of orders – party precluded from returning to same court to seek extension after conclusive time-bar determination; reliance on Court of Appeal authority (MM Worldwide; East Africa Development Bank; Olam Uganda).
|
22 September 2021 |
|
Res judicata bars relitigation of the ownership dispute; the suit challenging land certification was struck out as incompetent.
Land law — ownership dispute; res judicata — prior Tribunal and High Court determinations bar relitigation; preliminary objections — incompetence and striking out.
|
22 September 2021 |
|
Application to set aside dismissal struck out for citing wrong provision; leave to refile granted within 21 days.
Civil procedure – incorrect citation of statutory provisions – wrong or non-citation renders application incompetent and court not properly moved. Civil procedure – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – applicant must invoke correct provision and show sufficient cause. Relief – incompetent application struck out with leave to refile; no order as to costs.
|
22 September 2021 |
|
Failure to describe unsurveyed land sufficiently under Order VII r.3 renders the suit incompetent and struck out with leave to refile.
Civil procedure — Order VII r.3 CPC — description of immovable property — unsurveyed land requires particularity (boundaries/size) to render decree executable; preliminary objection — insufficiency of plaint — suit struck out with leave to refile; service requirements under s.106 Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act (raised but not determined).
|
22 September 2021 |