The Court of Appeal has dismissed a case in which a perturbed mother alongside one of her sons had sued her other son over a 21-acre piece of land in Kericho County.
Taplule Mosonik alongside her son Joseph Mosonik had accused her other son, Kipkemoi Mosonik, of selling a parcel of land they allegedly bought together, without their consent.
The two sought for the appellate court to share the disputed piece of land, alleging that both were entitled to it.
The mother, in a statement filed in court, alleged that she and her two sons had purchased the land with the three agreeing to divide the cost.
She claimed to produce the lion's share of the cost churning out Ksh2,600 while her other sons Joseph and Kipkemoi gave Ksh1,200 and Ksh1,900 respectively.
Noting that she did not possess an identification card at the time, the mother alleged that they registered the land under Kipkemoi's name.
According to court documents filed on May 11, 2010, both Taplule and Joseph filed a complaint in Environment and land Court against Kipkemoi seeking to subdivide the parcel of land.
The statement, issued by the mother and son, stated that Kipkemoi had proceeded to sell the parcel of land without their consent.
In a rejoinder, he filed a statement of defense on March 31, 2011, disputing that the three had jointly purchased the land. In his argument, he alleged that he had purchased the piece of land from a real estate company for Ksh6,000.
The matter was later taken to the High Court in which Justice Sila Munyao disputed the suit filed against Kipkemoi, noting that the appellants had not clearly stipulated the alleged trust among the parties.
Dissatisfied by the decision, the mother took the matter further to the court of appeal to dispute the judge's ruling.
She filed a Memorandum of Appeal, arguing that the judge had not addressed the issues at hand hence he arrived at an erred decision.
Justices Jamila Mohammed, Sankale ole Kantai and Fatuma Sichale, upheld the ruling issued by the High Court and dismissed the case.
“In the end, we find no merit in the appeal and order that it be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent,” read part of the judgment.
