Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Bungoma Environment and Land Court suit)

Hamulutone Marakia Wambeye v Saul Masika Makasi & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4819 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 January 2018
1,084 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

In Kenya, buying a deceased person's land from relatives without letters of administration gets you nothing — the court ordered the buyers evicted.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, administrator of the estate of Ainea Wambeye, registered owner of Bokoli/Chwele/204, sued the defendants for trespass, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from entering, cultivating or erecting structures on the land. The defendants (except the 4th defendant) denied the claim and asserted they had purchased their portions from sons or relatives of the deceased. At trial, the plaintiff (PW1) produced the grant of letters of administration in Bungoma High Court P & A 168 of 2007 and proved the registered ownership; the defendants confirmed buying after the deceased's death from persons without letters of administration, and their objections in the succession cause had been dismissed. The court framed one issue: whether an eviction order should issue. It found the suit land belonged to the deceased; the sellers had no capacity to sell as they lacked letters of administration; and the land being agricultural, no Land Control Board consent was proved, rendering any sales void under the Land Control Act. The court held the plaintiff properly sued to preserve the estate before distribution, and that the defendants should pursue any claims in the pending succession cause against the beneficiaries. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff: the defendants were given 60 days to vacate, failing which they would be evicted with the assistance of the court broker and O.C.S. Chwele Police Station at their own cost, and the plaintiff was awarded the costs of the suit.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether an order for eviction should be issued against the defendants

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defendants, who bought portions of the deceased's land after his death from persons without letters of administration, could resist eviction

Holding

No; the purchases were made without legal capacity and any agricultural land transfers were void for want of Land Control Board consent, so eviction was ordered

Reasoning

The suit land belonged to the deceased, whose estate was represented by the plaintiff under a grant in Bungoma High Court P & A 168 of 2007. The defendants bought after the deceased's death from sons or relatives who had no letters of administration, and thus no capacity to sell. No Land Control Board consent was proved, rendering any sales void under the Land Control Act. Their objections in the succession cause had been dismissed. The court held the plaintiff entitled to evict them to preserve the estate pending distribution.

p. 2
02

Whether defendants with claims to the estate should pursue them in the succession cause

Holding

Yes; any claims must await distribution of the estate in the pending succession cause and be brought against the beneficiaries

Reasoning

The succession cause was ongoing, awaiting distribution to the heirs. The defendants were aware of it and their objections were dismissed. The court directed that anyone with a claim should await distribution and bring their claim against the beneficiaries, while the defendants themselves were to vacate the suit land. This preserves the estate while leaving the defendants' claims to the proper forum.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Persons who purchase a deceased person's land after his death from persons without letters of administration acquire no enforceable interest; even heirs had no capacity to sell before distribution.
  • Sales of agricultural land without Land Control Board consent are void under the Land Control Act.
  • An administrator may sue to evict trespassers to preserve the estate prior to distribution.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendants to vacate the suit land within 60 days
  2. 2.Failing vacation, eviction of the defendants by the plaintiff with the help of the court broker and O.C.S. Chwele Police Station, at the defendants' cost
  3. 3.The plaintiff to have the costs of the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over the land suit; plaintiff sued as holder of letters of administration to the estate of the registered owner

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.

Even if they did so, they had no capacity to do so since they did not have the Letters of Administration of the deceased registered owner.
p. 2Capacity of heirs to sell estate land before distribution
If there were any sales, they are void for lack of the said consent under the Land Control Act.
p. 2Voidness of agricultural land transfers without Land Control Board consent
They will therefore move and vacate out of the suit land within 60 days. Failing which they will be evicted by the plaintiff with the help of this Courts broker with the help of the O.C.S. Chwele Police Station.
p. 2Final orders - eviction
The Plaintiff shall have the costs of the suit.
p. 3Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment alternately refers to the defendants as 'defendants' and 'respondents' and to the plaintiff as 'applicant', without explanation

minor

The succession cause number is inconsistently typed as '20007' and '2007'

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hamulutone Marakia Wambeye v Saul Masika Makasi & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4819 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Bungoma Environment and Land Court suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4819/eng@2018-01-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.