Lemita Ole Lemein v Attorney General & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Karanja, Kiage, Sichale, JJ.A
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Lemita Ole Lemein v Attorney General & 2 others [2020] eKLR case summary. Delve into key legal principles and implications of this landmark judgment in Kenyan law.

Case Brief: Lemita Ole Lemein v Attorney General & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Lemita Ole Lemein v. The Attorney General & Others
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2016
- Court: Court of Appeal at Nakuru
- Date Delivered: October 9, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Karanja, Kiage, Sichale, JJ.A
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving the following legal issues:
- Whether the petition filed by the 3rd respondent was res judicata or an abuse of the court process.
- Whether the 3rd respondent established a case of infringement of his fundamental rights to property and a fair hearing to the required threshold.
- Whether the orders of the tribunal, which the appellant's claim was based on, were valid and enforceable in law.

3. Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Lemita Ole Lemein, was registered as the proprietor of a parcel of land known as CIS-Mara/Oldonyo Rasha/377 after an award from the Ololunga Land Disputes Tribunal was adopted by the Narok Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court. The 3rd respondent, Lekinyot Ole Lanke, claimed ownership of the same land, arguing he purchased it from the initial owner and was fraudulently removed from the register without being given an opportunity to be heard. The 3rd respondent alleged violations of his constitutional rights, including the right to property and fair hearing, leading to the filing of a constitutional petition.

4. Procedural History:
The 3rd respondent initially filed a suit in the High Court, which he withdrew before filing a petition in the Environment and Land Court (ELC). The ELC found in favor of the 3rd respondent, quashing the tribunal's award and reinstating him as the registered proprietor. The appellant subsequently appealed this decision, asserting that the ELC erred in its findings regarding constitutional violations and jurisdiction.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Articles 40, 47, and 50 of the Kenyan Constitution regarding property rights and the right to a fair hearing. The jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal was also scrutinized under the Land Disputes Tribunal Act.
- Case Law: The court referenced several precedents, including *Anarita Karimi Njeru v. Republic* and *Trusted Society of Human Rights v. Mumo Matemu*, which established the threshold for proving violations of constitutional rights. The doctrine of res judicata was discussed in relation to previous cases filed by the 3rd respondent.
- Application: The court found that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership of the land and that the 3rd respondent was not afforded a fair hearing, thus violating his constitutional rights. The court emphasized that the 3rd respondent's claims were sufficiently substantiated and that the tribunal's actions were null and void.

6. Conclusion:
The Court of Appeal upheld the ELC's decision, confirming that the 3rd respondent's constitutional rights had been violated and that the tribunal's award was invalid. The ruling reinforced the importance of fair hearing rights and the jurisdictional limits of the Land Disputes Tribunal.

7. Dissent:
Judge Kiage dissented, arguing that the 3rd respondent's petition was improperly filed in the ELC instead of the High Court and that the issues raised could have been resolved through ordinary civil procedures rather than constitutional claims. He expressed concern that the petition was an abuse of the court process and should not have been entertained.

8. Summary:
The case of *Lemita Ole Lemein v. The Attorney General & Others* highlights significant issues regarding property rights, the jurisdiction of tribunals, and the fundamental right to a fair hearing. The Court of Appeal's decision affirmed the importance of these rights within the context of land disputes in Kenya, ultimately ruling against the appellant and reinstating the 3rd respondent as the rightful owner of the disputed property. The dissenting opinion raised critical questions about the appropriate forum for constitutional claims and the potential for abuse of the judicial process.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Lemita-Ole-Lemein-v-Attorney-General--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1717_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries