Chief Justice Martha Koome and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) are investigating a case in which a magistrate from Bondo Law Courts gave two conflicting judgements on the same matter in a span of two weeks.
In the matter, Senior Principal Magistrate John Paul Nandi issued a judgement in favour of a widow in a land dispute, which was uploaded in the judiciary portal.
However, two weeks later, the judgement was deleted and a different one, though from the same case, uploaded giving a different decision altogether indicating that the widow had lost the suit.
The confusion which was highlighted by the Nation.Africa has left the widow Ms Sabina Akinyi Masogo and the family, distraught and on the brink of losing a prime property she inherited after the death of her husband in 2016.
Her cry and plea has however reached the ears of the Chief Justice who has instigated a probe into the matter.
In a statement by the Directorate of Public Affairs and Communication in the Judiciary, the matter raises serious concerns touching on the judiciary's core mandate of fair administration of justice.
The investigations have commenced on the matter with the preliminary findings have established concerns.
"The Judiciary promptly commissioned preliminary examinations including review of the two alleged contradictory judgments; inspection of the Judiciary’s Case Tracking System portal where judgments and rulings are uploaded, among other inquiries," stated the release seen by Nation.
It further stated: "The outcome of these preliminary probes has revealed need for further detailed investigations and processes, which are underway. The Judiciary reiterates its commitment to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law."
On Wednesday this week, the Nation highlighted the plight of the 50-year-old who was dejected and confused after an initial judgement on a case pitying her and in-law was changed from her win to that of the respondent.
According to Ms Akinyi, the in-law fraudulently took the title deed for the said land parcel and transferred it irregularly.
“My in-law duped my husband and acquired the land title and changed it from my late husband’s name to his,” lamented the widow who claims that is the only inheritance left to her to raise the children.
According to the first judgment which was delivered on June 26, at 9:50 am at the Bondo law courts, the decision was in her favour directing the sub-county land registrar to make necessary changes in the documents.
“This court is satisfied that the certificate of title held by the first defendant in respect to the parcel of South Sakwa/Barkowino/2805 was procured through fraud and as such it is impeachable and ought to be cancelled, Further, this court has hold and found that the deceased Domnic Masogo Umaya is the legal owner of the suit property and it is only fair that the register be rectified to cure the fraud perpetrated by the first defendant and return the suit property to the rightful owner whose ownership has not been disputed,” read part of the judgment.
In the charge sheet against fraud, Joseph Agola Adundo the in-law of the plaintiff and Bondo District Land Registrar are listed as first and second respondents respectively.
Senior principal Magistrate John Paul Nandi further directed the necessary actions to be taken to return the parcel back to the plaintiff.
Things, however, turned upside down after two weeks when the advocate representing plaintiff Ruth Otieno issued a decree to effect the transfer back to the original owner.
“The judgment was read on the set date of June 26th and subsequently uploaded onto the Judiciary portal. According to this judgement which was in favour of my client, I proceeded to write a decree that would initiate the transfer, I was shocked to be informed that the judgement was different,” said Ms Otieno.
In the second judgement, the Magistrate claimed that the case filed by the plaintiff was untenable and went ahead to dismiss the case.
“I find the circumstances; the Plaintiff’s suit against the Defendants is not tenable in view of the clear provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act. I find that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove her case on balance of probabilities and hereby dismiss her case with costs to the defendant as costs follow the event,” read the second judgement.
“The second judgement which is in favour of the respondents was never read in court as the law dictates. When I asked him how he arrived at two judgments, he responded that the first one was a mistake that the second one stands for. I wonder how an experienced officer can write a wrong judgement and revert after two weeks,” said Ms Otieno.
