Otieno v Otieno & another (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Joseph Adede Otieno - Deceased) (Civil Appeal 109 of 2016) [2020] KECA 874 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed a land fraud appeal because fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, and second appeals cannot reargue facts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge of the Environment and Land Court erred in omitting part of the evidence of the appellant's witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW4
- 2.Whether the learned judge overlooked documentary evidence and evidence relating to adverse possession
- 3.Whether the learned judge erred in failing to establish how Joseph Adede Otieno came to be the owner of the suit property and who was in occupation of the suit property
- 4.Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below that fraud and misrepresentation were not proved could be disturbed on a second appeal
Key legal issues
#Scope of a second appeal
The Court in a second appeal confines itself to matters of law and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless based on no evidence or perverse.
Relying on Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo, the Court reiterated that a second appellate court must resist the temptation of delving into matters of fact, unless the two courts below considered matters they should not have, or failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse. The appellant's grounds were factual and raised no point of law.
Proof of fraud and misrepresentation
Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved; the concurrent finding by the two courts below that fraud was not proved could not be disturbed.
The appellant's claim was founded on alleged fraud in the registration of the suit property. The Court examined the record and could find no evidence supporting the pleaded particulars of fraud. Citing Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd, the Court noted that particulars of fraud must be given where fraud is pleaded, and that this requirement is mandatory. No scintilla of evidence of fraud existed.
Pleadings bound the parties and the court
The judge did not err in failing to determine ownership history or occupation because those issues were not pleaded; comments on adverse possession, which was not pleaded, were obiter dicta.
Following Galaxy Paints Ltd v Falcon Guards Limited, the Court held that parties are bound by their pleadings and a court cannot issue orders not sought in the pleadings. The issues of how Joseph Adede Otieno came to be registered and who occupied the land were not issues for determination from the plaint and pleadings, and adverse possession was likewise not pleaded.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court confines itself to matters of law and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below unless those findings are based on no evidence or are perverse.
- Where fraud is pleaded, particulars of the fraud must be given; the requirement for pleading particulars of fraud is mandatory.
- Parties are bound by their pleadings and a court cannot issue an order that is not in the pleadings; issues not pleaded are not before the court.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the applicable appeal framework, confined to matters of law
Relief refused
#Rectification of the register, general damages and allowance of the appeal as prayed by the appellant
The appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law; fraud and misrepresentation were not proved and the appeal was a rehashing of factual matters
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In a second appeal, an appellate court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below unless the findings are based on no evidence or are simply perverse.
We are unable to detect a scintilla of evidence proving fraud or misrepresentation.
In addition, the issue of adverse possession was not raised in the pleading and any comments thereon are obiter dicta.
The submissions were simply a repetitive rehashing of the facts and evidence on record. No point of law or error of law is evinced or argued in the submissions.
The upshot is that this appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Otieno v Otieno & another (Sued as the administrator of the Estate of Joseph Adede Otieno - Deceased) (Civil Appeal 109 of 2016) [2020] KECA 874 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Second Appeal from Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (as extracted from record of appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/874/eng@2020-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.