Siaya Family Appeals to Chief Justice Over Conflicting Court Judgments in Land Dispute

A family in Bondo, Siaya County, is embroiled in a legal quagmire after receiving two conflicting rulings from the same magistrate in a land dispute case. Sabina Akinyi Masogo, a resident of Sakwa Kaduodi village near Bondo town, has been left in a state of confusion and frustration after a local magistrate, John Paul Nandi, delivered two contradictory judgments just days apart. The conflicting rulings have prompted the family to appeal to the Chief Justice for intervention, citing concerns about the integrity of the judiciary.

The case revolves around a parcel of land that allegedly belongs to Sabina’s late husband, Domnic Masogo Umaya. Sabina contends that a man married to her late husband’s sister, Joseph Agola Adundo, fraudulently transferred the land to himself. According to Sabina, Adundo deceived Domnic into surrendering the title deed under the pretense of safeguarding it, only to later register the land in his own name.

On June 26, 2024, the Bondo law courts initially ruled in favor of Sabina. The court’s judgment directed the sub-county lands registrar to rectify the records and restore the title deed to the rightful owner, declaring that the title held by Adundo had been obtained through fraudulent means. The ruling clearly stated that the deceased, Domnic Masogo Umaya, was the legitimate owner of the land registered as South Sakwa/Barkowino/2805, and that the fraudulent transaction should be reversed to return the property to its rightful owner.

Sabina’s relief, however, was short-lived. When her lawyer, Ruth Otieno, prepared a decree to enforce the court’s directive, she was stunned to discover that the ruling on the judiciary portal had been altered. Despite the initial judgment being read in open court and uploaded onto the judiciary portal, a second judgment later appeared, favoring the defendant. This second ruling dismissed Sabina’s case on the grounds that it was not tenable under the law due to provisions of the Limitations Act, a stark contrast to the first judgment that had declared the transfer fraudulent.

“The initial judgment was read and uploaded as expected, and we began the process of enforcing it,” Otieno explained. “However, when we revisited the judiciary portal, we found a completely different ruling that had never been read in open court.” The altered ruling stated that Sabina had not proven her case on the balance of probabilities and dismissed it with costs awarded to the defendant.

When Otieno sought clarification from Magistrate Nandi, she was informed that the first judgment was a mistake and that the second judgment was the correct one. This explanation has left Sabina’s family and their legal counsel perplexed and concerned about the judicial process. Efforts to reach Magistrate Nandi for further comment were unsuccessful, as court officials revealed that he had been transferred to Kimilili law courts.

Court officials acknowledged that the initial judgment was indeed posted on the judiciary portal before being deleted and replaced with the conflicting ruling. They noted that only magistrates, judges, or authorized secretaries have the ability to upload or modify judgments on the portal.

Sabina’s son, Jackton Otieno Masogo, has publicly appealed to the Chief Justice to investigate the matter and ensure that justice is served. He expressed dismay at the altered judgment, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the judiciary. “We cannot understand how a decision made in open court was later changed without any formal notice. If such actions go unchecked, it will erode public confidence in the judicial system,” he lamented.

The family hopes that the Chief Justice’s intervention will rectify the situation and restore their faith in the legal process. For now, they continue to wait anxiously for justice to prevail in a case that has cast a spotlight on the challenges facing Kenya’s judicial system.