Mohamed Shally Sese (suing as the administrator of the estate of the late Shali Sese) v Edward Mzee Karezi & 10 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E.K. Ogola
Judgment Date
October 06, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Mohamed Shally Sese v Edward Mzee Karezi & 10 others [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal arguments and outcomes in this significant judicial decision.

Case Brief: Mohamed Shally Sese (suing as the administrator of the estate of the late Shali Sese) v Edward Mzee Karezi & 10 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Mohamed Shally Sese v. Edward Mzee Karezi & Others
- Case Number: Petition No. 5 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Date Delivered: October 6, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E.K. Ogola
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition concerning alleged violations of constitutional rights related to land ownership and allocation, which the respondents argue fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Mohamed Shally Sese, acting as the administrator of the estate of the late Shali Sese, filed a petition against multiple respondents, including Edward Mzee Karezi and several companies, regarding the allocation and ownership of various parcels of land in Kilifi Township. The petitioner alleges that the allocation of these lands contravened constitutional rights and seeks the cancellation of certain land titles.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of the petition on January 22, 2019. A Preliminary Objection was raised by the 2nd and 3rd respondents on June 2, 2020, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The petitioner filed submissions on June 19, 2020, asserting that the High Court had jurisdiction based on constitutional provisions. The respondents countered with their submissions throughout June and July 2020, reiterating their position regarding the jurisdictional issues.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court examined provisions from the Constitution of Kenya, particularly Articles 162(2)(b) and 165, along with Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. These laws delineate the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court concerning land disputes.

- Case Law: The court referenced several precedents, including *Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited* [1989] KLR 1, which established that a court without jurisdiction cannot proceed with a case. Other cases cited included *Habo Agencies Limited v. National Land Commission* and *Leisure Lodges Limited v. Commissioner of Lands*, which support the notion of concurrent jurisdiction between the High Court and the Environment and Land Court in matters involving the violation of rights related to land.

- Application: The court determined that the petition primarily involved disputes over land ownership and allocation, which are best suited for resolution in the Environment and Land Court. The court upheld the Preliminary Objection, stating that it lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should be referred to the appropriate court for hearing.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents' Preliminary Objection, concluding that the case pertained to land ownership issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The petition was subsequently transferred to that court for proper determination.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling, as the decision was unanimous in upholding the Preliminary Objection.

8. Summary:
The case illustrates the jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and the Environment and Land Court in Kenya, particularly concerning land disputes. The High Court's decision to transfer the case underscores the importance of proper jurisdiction in legal proceedings and the need for specialized courts to handle specific types of disputes effectively. This ruling reinforces the principle that constitutional rights related to land must be addressed in the appropriate legal forum.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Mohamed-Shally-Sese-suing-as-the-administrator-of-the-estate-of-the-late-Shali-Sese-v-Edward-Mzee-Karezi--10-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1432_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries