|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2022 |
|
|
Extension of time refused where applicant sought revision against a wrongly targeted default judgment after unsuccessful challenges.
Extension of time – good cause – technical delay; Procedural misconception – seeking revision against a decision already unsuccessfully challenged; Illegality – cannot be relied on to bypass prior remedies; Striking out misconceived applications.
|
12 May 2022 |
|
An appeal instituted against a deceased respondent is incompetent and must be struck out.
Civil procedure – Competency of proceedings – Appeal instituted against a deceased respondent – necessity to substitute legal personal representative – incompetent proceedings to be struck out.
|
12 May 2022 |
|
Applicant granted leave to appeal after affidavit showed arguable grounds; court avoided deciding substantive issues at leave stage.
Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – Discretionary remedy – Grant where grounds raise arguable or novel point of law or prima facie appeal. Appellate practice – Court at leave stage must not decide substantive issues; only assess arguability. Extension of time – Allegation of illegality on face of judgment may be relevant but merits are for the appellate court to determine. Requirement to file appeal within prescribed time; costs to follow events
|
12 May 2022 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to impeach a District Land and Housing Tribunal decision by way of a fresh plaint.
Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — High Court (Land Division) lacks jurisdiction to impeach a District Land and Housing Tribunal decision by way of a fresh plaint; proper remedy is revision or appeal under the Land Disputes Courts Act and Civil Procedure Code. Preliminary objection — Competency — A preliminary objection that raises pure point of law is competent and must be decided before merits. Land law — Execution and declaratory relief — Decrees of the Tribunal ordinarily challengeable by statutory channels, not by instituting a new suit
|
12 May 2022 |
|
Second appellate court refuses to entertain new grounds and upholds that the appellant authorized the land sale.
Land law – dispute over ownership and alleged trespass – proof of sale and authorisation to sell – role of power of attorney and sale agreement. Appellate procedure – limits of second appeal – new grounds not raised in lower tribunals are not entertainable
Evidence – hearsay vs. direct testimony; weight of concurrent findings of fact. Locus in quo – inspection discretionary and only in exceptional circumstances, not automatic
|
12 May 2022 |
|
Unsorn witnesses and failure to read admitted documents are fatal irregularities warranting a trial de novo.
Land law — Procedural fairness — Failure to affirm/ swear witnesses; failure to read admitted documentary evidence — Fatal irregularities — Proceedings quashed — Trial de novo ordered before different Chairperson and new Assessors; costs each party to bear own.
|
12 May 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal granted on arguable limitation and procedural issues after respondent withdrew opposition.
Civil procedure — Leave to appeal — Section 47(2) Land Disputes Courts Act — prima facie arguable grounds required for leave. Limitation law — Time-bar — commencement of limitation where government confirmation of land ownership exists (2008). Appellate procedure — Whether High Court may dismiss on time issue not raised at trial
Procedural — effect of respondent withdrawing opposition to leave application
|
12 May 2022 |
|
A Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over a matrimonial contribution dispute; its proceedings and the subsequent appeal were nullified.
Ward Tribunal jurisdiction — nature of dispute (matrimonial contribution v. land matter) — jurisdiction is statutory not conferred by title — nullity of proceedings for want of jurisdiction — revisional powers to quash proceedings.
|
12 May 2022 |
|
Applicants failed to show sufficient cause to set aside dismissal and ex-parte judgment; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution and ex-parte judgment — requirements of showing sufficient cause; adequacy and authenticity of medical evidence for counsel's ill health; traffic jam not a special circumstance justifying non-appearance; Order IX Rules 6(1) & 9, Civil Procedure Code.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Non‑compliance with court order to file written submissions justifies dismissal with costs for failure to prosecute.
Civil procedure – Failure to comply with court directions – Non‑filing of ordered written submissions – Tantamount to failure to appear – Dismissal for want of prosecution
Limitation – Application for extension of time under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – entitlement contingent on prosecution and compliance with court orders
Costs – non‑compliance with court order may justify costs against applicants
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or account for each day of delay; extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs.
Extension of time – Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11(1) – good cause required; accounting for each day of delay; change of counsel not a blanket excuse without particulars.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Court recorded and entered a consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, enforcing settlement terms including payment and release of title deeds.
Civil procedure – Consent judgment – Recording and entry of decree pursuant to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code where parties file a lawful deed of settlement.* Settlement enforcement – Court-ordered payment schedule, costs award, release of title deeds, and enforcement clause on default.* Precedent – Court bound to record lawful agreements (see Motor Vessel Speideh v. Yusuph Mohamed Yusuph)
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Interim injunction granted to restrain the respondent from disposing of the applicant’s land pending resolution of a loan dispute.
Land — Interim injunction — Application to restrain sale of land pending trial — Three‑part Atilio test: triable issue, irreparable injury, balance of convenience — Loan facility dispute and alleged ignored repayments in demand notice.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Tribunal's failure to order ex parte against non-defending respondents vitiated proceedings and warranted quashing and remittal.
Land disputes — written statement of defence — failure to file WSD — participation in cross-examination by non-defending respondents — expungement as corrective measure — necessity of formal order to proceed ex parte — revision powers to quash and remit proceedings.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Application for extension of time denied where applicant failed to account for days of delay and produce proof of follow-ups.
Land law — extension of time to appeal under s.38(1) Land Disputes Courts Act — must provide credible reasons and account for each day of delay; evidential proof of attempts to obtain judgment copies required — application dismissed for failure to account.
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Alleged illegality in prior appeal suffices as good cause to extend time to file a review.
Extension of time – application for review – illegality in the impugned decision as sufficient cause – service by publication – ex parte proceedings.
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Wrong citation of procedural provisions not necessarily fatal; court overruled preliminary objection and proceeded to consider extension merits.
Civil procedure – extension of time – correct statutory provision (s.14 Law of Limitation Act) versus wrong citation (ss.93,95 CPC); citation error not fatal where Court has jurisdiction; Lyamuya factors for extension; illegality principle (Devram Valambia).
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to prove good cause or account for delay; extension of time to appeal dismissed with no costs.
Civil procedure – extension of time – requirement to show good cause and to account for each day of delay. Proof required for attempts to obtain legal assistance or legal aid when relied upon as excuse for delay. Filing fees and availability of fee waiver/legal aid relevant to claims of financial incapacity. Late procedural filings disregarded if no application for extension of time made
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Applicant granted interim injunction to restrain alienation of disputed land pending determination of the main suit.
Interlocutory injunction – Order XXXVII r.1(a) CPC – Atilio v Mbowe test (serious triable issue, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) – disputed land subject to mortgage – prevention of alienation pending main suit.
|
9 May 2022 |
|
Appeal dismissed: wayleave granted after sale without the owner’s consent is void and no easement established.
Land law – Easement/right of way – validity of wayleave granted by a former owner after sale; Easement requires consent or operation against current owner/possessor; Second appeal – concurrent tribunal findings not disturbed absent misapprehension of evidence or error of law; Prescription/implied easement claims and Limitation Act considerations.
|
9 May 2022 |
|
Res judicata did not bar the appellant’s land claim because she was not a party to the earlier matrimonial proceedings and prior proceedings were not final.
Civil procedure – res judicata – section 9 CPC – requirements for res judicata (same parties, same issue, final decision, competent court). Res judicata – struck-out proceedings do not amount to a final decision. Explanation VI, section 9 CPC – application limited to bona fide litigants; not applicable where prior proceedings founded on concealment/misconduct. Right to be heard – non-parties to prior proceedings cannot be bound by their outcomes
Procedure – Order XXI Rule 62 CPC and revisionary remedies are alternative routes; substantive hearing ordered
|
9 May 2022 |
|
Temporary injunction refused because crucial facts were not pleaded in the supporting affidavit under Order XXXVII.
Civil procedure – temporary injunctions – Order XXXVII Rule 1 and Section 68(e) CPC – Atilio v Mbowe test – necessity of pleading serious question, irreparable harm and balance of convenience in affidavit; submissions are not evidence – allegations of forgery/fraud require proper evidential basis (police report/investigation) at interlocutory stage.
|
5 May 2022 |
|
Doctrine of res sub judice applied: two lease-related suits consolidated to be heard and determined together.
Civil Procedure — Res sub judice (section 8 CPC) — same parties, same subject matter, pending earlier suit; Order VIII Rule 2 — matters to be raised in pleadings; Preliminary objection — scope and limits (Mukisa test); Consolidation/inherent power and overriding-objective (section 3A CPC) to avoid conflicting decisions.
|
5 May 2022 |
|
Application for committal dismissed: affidavit incurably defective and contempt not proved to the required standard.
Civil procedure – chamber summons – supporting affidavit – jurat must show place and date of attestation (s.8 Cap 12) – omission renders affidavit incurably defective
Contempt – committal to prison – right to be heard and joinder/ service of alleged contemnor – requirement of natural justice. Standard of proof – higher/ criminal standard where liberty is at stake – applicant must prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt/ higher degree of probability
|
5 May 2022 |
|
Failure to plead and attach a board resolution renders a company's suit incompetent and subject to striking out.
Companies Act s.147(1)(a) – corporate authorization to sue – requirement to plead and attach board/company resolution – preliminary objection – competency of plaint – strike out with leave to refile.
|
5 May 2022 |
|
Appeal dismissed as time‑barred where exchequer receipt established payment date after the extended filing deadline.
Land appeal — limitation — computation of filing date — exchequer receipt date vs registry admission — 45‑day period under s.41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act — late filing leads to dismissal under s.3 Law of Limitation Act.
|
5 May 2022 |
|
A previously dismissed suit on the same cause between the same parties bars a new suit as res judicata.
Res judicata — prior dismissal of same subject matter between same parties bars subsequent suit (s.9 CPC); Preliminary objection — jurisdictional objections may be raised belatedly and must be determined; Effect of dismissal — dismissal does not permit refiling same suit in same court; Costs — struck out with costs.
|
2 May 2022 |