www.ousaokello.com

The case of Ngulungu Kitheka Ngao v. Alexander Matuvi Kitheka, revolved around a dispute over the ownership of two parcels of land (MATINYANI/MUTULU/475 and 476) in Kenya. The appellant, Ngulungu Kitheka Ngao, claimed to be the registered owner of the land, while the respondent, Alexander Matuvi Kitheka (his younger brother), argued that the land was jointly purchased and held in trust by the appellant for his benefit. The case went through multiple courts, and the Supreme Court of Kenya was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Article 163(4)(a) of the Kenyan Constitution.

Key Issues in the Case:

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the case did not involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution. The respondent contended that the dispute was purely factual, involving the ownership of land and the existence of a constructive trust. The appellant, however, argued that his constitutional rights under Articles 25(c) (right to fair hearing), 40 (right to property), and 50 (fair administrative action) were violated by the lower courts’ decisions.
2. Constructive Trust: The lower courts (Magistrate’s Court, Environment and Land Court, and Court of Appeal) had all ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that a constructive trust existed. The courts held that the appellant held the land in trust for the respondent based on their common intention and joint contribution to the purchase of the land.
3. Factual vs. Constitutional Issues: The Supreme Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) is limited to cases involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution. The Court found that the dispute was primarily factual, focusing on evidence of joint ownership and the existence of a trust, rather than constitutional interpretation. The Court noted that none of the lower courts’ judgments referenced the Constitution, and the appellant’s invocation of constitutional rights appeared to be an afterthought rather than a central issue in the case.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

• The Court upheld the respondent’s preliminary objection, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the case did not involve constitutional interpretation or application.
• The Court struck out the petition and awarded costs to the respondent, emphasizing that the appellant had not demonstrated that the case met the threshold for a constitutional appeal under Article 163(4)(a).

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that its jurisdiction is limited to constitutional matters. The Court cannot be used as a forum for re-litigating factual disputes that have already been resolved by lower courts. The appellant’s attempt to frame the case as a constitutional issue was unsuccessful because the core of the dispute was factual (ownership of land and the existence of a trust), not constitutional.
2. Constructive Trust Doctrine: The lower courts’ reliance on the doctrine of constructive trust highlights the importance of common intention and joint contribution in determining property disputes, especially in family contexts. The courts found that the respondent had sufficiently proved his case based on evidence of joint purchase and occupation of the land.
3. Strategic Use of Constitutional Arguments: The appellant’s invocation of constitutional rights (Articles 25(c), 40, and 50) was seen as a strategic move to bring the case within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. However, the Court rejected this approach, emphasizing that constitutional arguments must be central to the case from the outset, not introduced as an afterthought.

Conclusion:

This case underscores the importance of clearly identifying constitutional issues early in litigation, especially when seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya. It also highlights the Court’s strict adherence to its jurisdictional limits under Article 163(4)(a). The decision reaffirms that the Supreme Court is not a forum for re-examining factual disputes but rather for resolving significant constitutional questions or matters of public importance.