Wanjiru Mburu Koko & 2 others v Mworona Ole Pokare & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Mohammed Kullow
Judgment Date
October 02, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Wanjiru Mburu Koko & 2 others v Mworona Ole Pokare & 2 others [2020] eKLR. Gain insights into the legal reasoning and outcomes of this significant ruling.

Case Brief: Wanjiru Mburu Koko & 2 others v Mworona Ole Pokare & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Wanjiru Mburu Koko & Others v. Mworona Ole Pokare & Others
- Case Number: ELC PETITION NO. 4 OF 2017 (formerly KISII PET. NO. 32 OF 2016)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Date Delivered: October 2, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Mohammed Kullow
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several key legal questions:
1. Whether the 1st respondent had acquired title to plot No. 267 Kojonga Adjudication Section illegally.
2. Whether the petitioners’ rights had been infringed upon.
3. Whether the petition satisfied the threshold of a constitutional petition.
4. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought.

3. Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, Wanjiru Mburu Koko and Peter Mwaura Koko, are the administrators of the estate of the late Mburu Mwaura Koko, who died intestate in 2005. They claimed ownership of land parcel No. 267 Kojonga Adjudication Section, asserting that the deceased was the rightful owner. The 1st respondent, Mworona Ole Pokare, claimed that he was the legitimate owner, having successfully contested the deceased's ownership during the adjudication process. The petitioners contended that their constitutional rights were violated when the 2nd respondent, the District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, revoked the deceased's registration without a fair hearing, as required by Article 50(1) of the Kenyan Constitution.

4. Procedural History:
The petitioners filed their petition on November 14, 2013, seeking various declarations and injunctions against the respondents. The 1st respondent opposed the petition, asserting his legitimate ownership of the land and claiming that the petitioners had not attended the hearings related to the land adjudication process. The 2nd and 3rd respondents supported the 1st respondent's position, arguing that the petitioners failed to appeal the adjudication officer's decision. The case was heard, and testimonies were presented, including that of the petitioners and the respondents.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the provisions of Article 40 (protection of property rights) and Article 50(1) (right to a fair hearing) of the Constitution of Kenya. Additionally, it referenced the Land Adjudication Act, which outlines the procedures for land adjudication and the rights of individuals to appeal decisions made by adjudication officers.
- Case Law: The court cited the case of Dr. Joseph Arap Ngok v. Justice Moijo Ole Kewa, which established that a registered title is absolute and can only be challenged on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. This case underscored the importance of due process in land adjudication and the necessity for parties to pursue available legal remedies.
- Application: The court found that the 1st respondent had legally acquired the title to the land after a valid objection process. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that their right to a fair hearing was violated, as they were given notice of the hearings but did not attend. The court concluded that the petitioners did not meet the burden of proof to show that the title was obtained fraudulently and that they had other legal avenues for redress which they did not pursue.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the 1st respondent's acquisition of title was valid and that the petitioners had not established a constitutional violation. The decision reinforced the notion that individuals must utilize available legal remedies rather than converting disputes into constitutional issues when other avenues exist.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The court ruled in favor of the 1st respondent, affirming his ownership of land parcel No. 267 Kojonga Adjudication Section. The case highlights the importance of following due process in land adjudication and the necessity for parties to actively participate in legal proceedings to protect their rights. The dismissal of the petition serves as a reminder that constitutional claims must be substantiated with clear evidence of rights violations, especially when alternative legal remedies are available.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Wanjiru-Mburu-Koko--2-others-v-Mworona-Ole-Pokare--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2126_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries