SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

BONIFACE NJUGUNA GAKURU v PAUL NJOROGE GAKURU [2009] KEHC 2764 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2764 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2764
Citation
[2009] KEHC 2764 (KLR)
Decided
22 July 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the award of the Provincial Land Dispute Appeal Committee Central ProvinceCoramM. S. A. MAKHANDIA
Holding

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs as the parties are brothers.

Facts

The appellant and respondent are brothers. The appellant is the registered proprietor of land parcel Makuyu/Makuyu/Block 1/1315 (suit premises). The suit premises were originally owned by their mother, Wangari Gakuru, who voluntarily transferred them to the appellant. The respondent claimed the suit premises were unlawfully transferred, and the Provincial Land Dispute Appeal Committee Central Province awarded the land to both brothers equally.

Issues

  1. Whether the Provincial Land Dispute Appeal Committee Central Province erred in law by dealing with matters relating to title which is a matter outside its jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the Provincial Land Dispute Appeal Committee Central Province exceeded its jurisdiction by purporting to deal with matters that were not heard by the District Tribunal.
  3. Whether the Provincial Land Dispute Appeal Committee Central Province exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the Court Registrar to sign the relevant land consent documents.
  4. Whether the Provincial Land Dispute Appeal Committee Central Province’s award was adopted as a judgment by the Principal magistrate’s court at Murang’a.

Reasoning

The appeal is dismissed due to technicalities, including the lack of a certificate certifying that the appeal involves points of law and the absence of a response to the point that the appeal involves points of law.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case