|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| January 2025 |
|
|
Court nullified a mortgage due to fraudulent procurement using forged documents, awarding costs to plaintiffs.
Land Law – Mortgage fraud – Allegation of forgery in securing loans with a company's property without consent – Misrepresentation by defendants.
|
31 January 2025 |
|
Court entered consent judgment enforcing settlement: payment, title surrender, substitute plots and release of claims.
Civil procedure – Consent judgment and settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 – Court recording settlement as decree – Enforceability and default clause – Transfer of registered land title and relinquishment of claims – Allocation of substitute plots by government/necessary parties.
|
31 January 2025 |
|
Objection proceedings are premature without an existing attachment order and the judgment debtor must be joined.
Civil Procedure – Execution – Objection proceedings under Order XXI Rules 57(1) and 59 require an existing attachment/sale order; absence of attachment renders objection premature; Section 48(1)(e) protects matrimonial home but does not prescribe procedure/timing; time to challenge runs from service/awareness of attachment; joinder of judgment debtor is necessary.
|
31 January 2025 |
|
Failure to describe unsurveyed land sufficiently renders the suit incompetent and proceedings a nullity.
Land law – pleadings – description of immovable property; Order VII Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code mandatory for identification of suit land; applicability to District Land and Housing Tribunal via s.51 Land Disputes Courts Act; insufficiency of description for unsurveyed land renders suit incompetent and decree unexecutable; proceedings, judgment and decree quashed.
|
31 January 2025 |
|
Technical delay from an earlier timely but incompetent appeal constituted good cause to extend time to appeal.
Extension of time – good cause – technical delay where earlier appeal was timely but struck out as premature – Lyamuya factors; Section 102(1) Land Registration appeals; technical delays under limitation law (Fortunatus Masha).
|
30 January 2025 |
|
Court overruled preliminary objection; jurisdiction for caveat removal upheld and caveator’s locus standi to be determined on merits.
Land law — Removal of registered caveat under s.78(4) LRA — Jurisdictional overlap with probate and administration — Locus standi of caveator claiming administrator capacity — Requirement of proof of letters of administration/registration.
|
29 January 2025 |
|
Absence of an advocate alone is insufficient to restore a dismissed case; parties must show good cause for their non-appearance.
Civil procedure – Restoration of dismissed application – Non-appearance by both parties and advocate – Sufficiency of reasons – Duty on parties to account for absence – Discretion of Tribunal.
|
29 January 2025 |
|
Appellate court nullified locus visit and set aside tribunal judgment for inadequate analysis of conflicting sale agreements and boundaries.
Land dispute — Competing sale agreements — Conflicting measurements and boundaries — Witness endorsement discrepancies — Locus in quo visit procedure and recording — Appellate review: nullification of inadequate locus proceedings and remittal for fresh visit and judgment.
|
29 January 2025 |
|
Mareva injunction dismissed where applicants proved a triable issue but failed to show specific irreparable harm.
Mareva injunction — availability pending 90‑day notice to sue the Government; conditions for injunctive relief (triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) apply cumulatively; requirement to plead cause of action and serve notice; irreparable harm must be specifically pleaded and supported by non‑hearsay evidence; court may disregard late‑filed submissions without leave.
|
24 January 2025 |
|
A Mareva injunction can be sought before a main suit; the 90‑day statutory notice is not a prerequisite.
Mareva injunction — application before main suit; Government Proceedings Act s6(2) — 90‑day notice mandatory for main suit only; preliminary objection — prematurity; service/copy of statutory notice to local authority not determinative at injunctive stage.
|
24 January 2025 |
|
Court granted temporary injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing disputed plots, finding a prima facie case and irreparable harm.
Land — Temporary injunction — Application under Order XXXVIII r.1 and Sections 68(e), 95 CPC — Atilio v Mbowe test: prima facie case, irreparable loss, balance of convenience. Disputed title/possession — question whether respondents are bona fide purchasers following public auction. Preservation of status quo where tenants in occupation and title remains in applicants' name. Costs to abide outcome of main suit.
|
22 January 2025 |
|
Alleged private agreement to transfer mortgaged land invalid; receiver-manager's registered sale lawful; plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
Land law — Mortgage and disposition — Effect of registered mortgage; nemo dat rule; sale by receiver-manager and registration; burden of proof on alleged private agreement; inadmissibility/insufficiency of secondary evidence for repayment; claim for rental arrears requires proof.
|
20 January 2025 |
|
Court affirmed jurisdiction over rent-arrears claim but ordered amendment for inadequate fraud particulars and improper joinder.
Land law – Lease – Recovery of rent arrears – Jurisdiction under section 109 of the Land Act; Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – jurisdiction, misjoinder, lack of cause of action; Pleading – Allegations of fraud/misrepresentation require specific particulars; Relief – Amendment under Order VI r.17 CPC preferable to striking out.
|
20 January 2025 |
|
Unsworn testimony at a locus in quo visit is no evidence and renders the ensuing judgment null, requiring remittal.
Land law – locus in quo – necessity of inspection in boundary/trespass disputes; procedural requirements for locus in quo visits (attendance, oath, cross‑examination, recording, court observations). Evidence – unsworn testimony is no evidence; failure to recall witnesses and to swear them at locus in quo is a fatal irregularity. Remedy – quash proceedings relying on improperly taken locus evidence and remit for rehearing.
|
16 January 2025 |
|
An appeal was dismissed as time‑barred where the 45‑day period began on judgment delivery, not on an undated copy supply.
Land law — Appeals — Time‑bar — Section 41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap.216 R.E.2019) — 45‑day filing period — computation from date of judgment delivery; Limitation — Section 19 Law of Limitation Act (Cap.89 R.E.2019) — exclusion for time required to obtain copy applies where copy bears certification/supply date; procedural relief — need to apply for leave/extension under proviso to s.41(2); distinction from cases where certified copy shows supply date.
|
16 January 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to account for inordinate delay; court upheld refusal to extend time for restitution application.
Land law — extension of time under section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act — discretionary relief guided by Lyamuya criteria — applicant must account for all delay; pendency of notice of appeal or order to refile not automatic good cause — inordinate and unexplained delay justifies refusal.
|
16 January 2025 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction over a breach-of-lease claim; statute vests such jurisdiction in the District Court, suit struck out.
Land law – Breach of lease – Remedies (eviction, damages, rent arrears) – Whether High Court has jurisdiction to entertain lease disputes – Section 107, Land Act (Cap.113 R.E.2019). Civil procedure – Preliminary objection on jurisdiction – Court to consider pleadings only; jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be conferred by parties. Pecuniary jurisdiction – Value of claimed general damages does not determine jurisdiction where statute assigns matters to District Court.
|
16 January 2025 |
|
Failure to serve the 90‑day statutory notice when suing government officers renders the suit incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 5) – section 6(2) – mandatory 90‑day notice of intention to sue – non‑compliance renders suit incompetent; section 6(5) does not exempt joinder with private parties; Attorney General joinder vs notice requirement; striking out for prematurity.
|
8 January 2025 |
|
Appellant proved lack of spousal consent; mortgage over matrimonial home declared null and void.
• Property law – matrimonial home – spousal consent requirement under Law of Marriage Act s59(1) • Evidence – burden and onus of proof in civil cases – s110(1) Evidence Act; onus shifts after claimant discharges initial burden • Procedure – improper shifting/conflation of burdens by trial tribunal • Remedy – mortgage over matrimonial property without spousal consent is null and void
|
7 January 2025 |