Esther Jepkorir Sawe (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of James Kipkemboi Chirchir – Deceased) v Wesley Sosten Kiplangat Saina & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. M. Kibunja
Judgment Date
October 21, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Esther Jepkorir Sawe vs. Wesley Sosten Kiplangat Saina & others. Discover key arguments, legal insights, and implications of this landmark judgment.

Case Brief: Esther Jepkorir Sawe (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of James Kipkemboi Chirchir – Deceased) v Wesley Sosten Kiplangat Saina & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Esther Jepkorir Sawe (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of James Kipkemboi Chirchir – Deceased) v. Wesley Sosten Kiplangat Saina, The Chairman Land Disputes Tribunal, Kapsabet, The Hon. Attorney General
- Case Number: E & L Case No. 830“A” of 2012
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: 21st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. M. Kibunja
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues, including:
- Whether the Land Disputes Tribunal's decision was made within its jurisdiction.
- Whether the Land Registrar's and Surveyor's reports were part of the Tribunal's decision or the court's decision, and if the latter, whether it could be challenged without making the court a party.
- Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to any of the prayers sought in the suit.
- Who should bear the costs of the suit.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Esther Jepkorir Sawe, represented the estate of her deceased husband, James Kipkemboi Chirchir, who had initiated the suit concerning a disputed road of access through land parcel Nandi/Kamobo/1443. The 1st Defendant, Wesley Sosten Kiplangat Saina, claimed that the Plaintiff had blocked access to his land, Nandi/Kamobo/2549. The dispute was initially brought before the Land Disputes Tribunal, which referred the matter to the County Land Registrar and Surveyor. The Plaintiff argued that the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction and sought declarations that the Tribunal's decree was illegal and incapable of execution.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with a plaint filed on 14th March 2012, and after several amendments and procedural motions, it was transferred to the Environment and Land Court. The Plaintiff sought a stay of execution of the Tribunal's orders, which was granted. The hearing commenced on 18th November 2019, with testimonies from both parties and their witnesses. Written submissions were filed by all parties before the court rendered its judgment on 21st October 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The case involved the interpretation of the Land Disputes Tribunals Act, which outlined the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the procedures for handling land disputes. Specifically, Section 3(1) restricted the Tribunal's authority to matters involving land division, occupation claims, and trespass.
- Case Law: The court referenced *The Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” Vs Caltex Kenya Ltd (1989) KLR 1*, which emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in determining the validity of a tribunal's decisions. This precedent guided the court's assessment of the Tribunal's authority in the current case.
- Application: The court found that the Tribunal's ruling did not contain a definitive award or decision that could be executed. It concluded that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing the road access issue, which did not fall within its mandate. As a result, the subsequent court orders and reports from the Land Registrar and Surveyor were not part of the Tribunal's decision and could not be challenged without involving the court as a party.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the Plaintiff, stating that she had failed to prove her claims. The court dismissed the suit, determining that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought, and each party would bear its own costs.

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

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the Defendants, concluding that the Land Disputes Tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction regarding the road access dispute. The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in adjudicating land disputes and determined that the Plaintiff's claims were not substantiated. The decision highlights the need for parties to adhere to proper legal channels when contesting tribunal decisions and the significance of jurisdictional limits in land disputes.

Citations
- Land Disputes Tribunal Act, Chapter 303A of the Laws of Kenya (now repealed).
- *The Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” Vs Caltex Kenya Ltd (1989) KLR 1*.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Esther-Jepkorir-Sawe-Suing-as-the-Legal-Representative-of-the-Estate-of-James-Kipkemboi-Chirchir-–-Deceased-v-Wesley-Sosten-Kiplangat-Saina--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2284_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries