[2020] KEELC 3230 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the conservatory order at this interlocutory stage, emphasizing that it is not in possession of all the relevant facts necessary to make a determination on the rights and interests of the parties. The court noted the existence of other related petitions and the need to avoid issuing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3230 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fatuma Adan Dullo; Applicant: Hon. Rehema Jaladesa; Applicant: Hon. Abshiro Soka Halake; Applicant: Hon. Abdi Koropu Tepo; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: County Government of Isiolo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 28 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
- Outcome
- Interim conservatory order declined; application for prayer 3 dismissed at this stage.
- Legal Topics
- Community Land Adjudication, Public Participation, Conservatory Orders, Administrative Action
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fatuma Adan Dullo
Applicant
Hon. Rehema Jaladesa
Applicant
Hon. Abshiro Soka Halake
Applicant
Hon. Abdi Koropu Tepo
Applicant
Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
County Government of Isiolo
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant a conservatory order restraining the respondents from commencing, undertaking, or continuing with adjudication, survey, and demarcation of community land in Isiolo County pursuant to Legal Notice No. 150 of 2019.
- 2 Whether the adjudication process under Legal Notice No. 150 of 2019 is illegal or prejudicial to the petitioners' rights.
- 3 Whether the amendment of the legal notice affects the substance of the petition and the appropriateness of interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the conservatory order at this interlocutory stage, emphasizing that it is not in possession of all the relevant facts necessary to make a determination on the rights and interests of the parties. The court noted the existence of other related petitions and the need to avoid issuing conflicting orders. It also recognized the complexity and lengthy nature of the adjudication process under the relevant statutes. The court found that the issue of the amended legal notice and its implications must be fully canvassed in the main application or petition. Accordingly, the court held that interim relief was not warranted at this stage and that the matter should proceed...
Court Disposition
Interim conservatory order declined; application for prayer 3 dismissed at this stage.
Orders
- Prayer 3 in the application dated 14.11.2019 is declined at this stage.
- Parties to proceed with the directions already taken for canvassing the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
PET NO. 28 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 10 (2), 22 (1), (2) (B) (C), 61 OF THE COSNTITUTION OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE (40) (1), 47, 60(1), 63, 68(C) (II), 232 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMUNITY LAND ACT, 2016
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LEGAL NOTICE NO. 150 OF 2019
BETWEEN FATUMA ADAN DULLO....................................................1ST PETITIONER/APPLICANT
HON. REHEMA JALADESA..................................................................2ND PETITIONER/APPLICANT
HON.ABSHIRO SOKA HALAKE ..........................................................3RD PETITIONER/APPLICANT
HON. ABDI KOROPU TEPO ..................................................................5TH PETITIONER/APPLICANT
VERSUS
CABINET SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LANDS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING...1ST RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL...................................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF ISIOLO....................................................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. This matter is at the infancy stage. Both the petition and the application of the petitioners are yet to be heard. The petitioners pray that in the interim period, prayer N0. 3 in the application dated 14. 11. 2019 be allowed. The extract of the aforementioned prayer is as follows:
“That pending the determination of this application, this honourable court be pleased to grant a conservatory order restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, representatives, adjudication officers, surveyors and/or any other person whomsoever or anyone acting under their authority howsoever from commencing, undertaking and/or continuing with adjudication, survey and demarcation of the community land in Isiolo county pursuant to Legal Notice number 150 of 2019 dated 27th August, 2019”.
2. The applicants contend that the adjudication process being carried out in reference to the legal notice No. 150 of 2019 dated 27. 8.2019 is illegal as it affects the entire county. It has been argued that no prejudice will be occasioned if the process is halted for public participation to be undertaken. This court has also been urged to look at the element of use of public resources.
3. The Attorney General has opposed the issuance of prayer no. 3 averring that the process of survey and demarcation has not kicked off though it is intended to.
4. The county government of Isiolo has also opposed the issuance of the said order averring that they were not even aware of this petition, until Judge Okong’o directed that they be served of which they became aware of the matter on 28. 11. 2019. It was argued for the county government of Isiolo that the notice has been amended, changing the character of the petition as filed and hence there is no petition challenging the amended notice.
5. I have considered the issues raised herein. Firstly, I take Judicial notice that there are conflicts of great magnitude afflicting the rights and interests in land in Isiolo county as manifested in the myriad of cases filed in courts. I have also previously mentioned that I am privy to the existence of some petitions touching on adjudication of land in Isiolo county though parties herein claim that the other petitions are not concerned with this matter. However, as late as 18. 2.2020, I do recall having delivered a ruling appertaining to Meru ELC Petition 9 of 2019 touching on the ongoing adjudication process in some areas of Isiolo county. It is therefore paramount that this court should not issue conflicting orders.
6. The court will strive to ensure that matters touching on adjudication process in Isiolo county run concurrently in order to maintain a harmonious resolution of the disputes.
7. I also take Judicial notice that adjudication process as outlined in the relevant statutes (The Land Consolidation Act, The Land Adjudication Act and Community Land Act) entails an extremely elaborate and rigorous process which takes a considerable period of time to be completed.
8. I do recall that in year 2017, I dealt with an almost similar matter in Meru Petition no. 7 of 2017; County Government of Meru & Another vs. District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Tigania East Sub County & 18 Others (2018) Eklr, where I was dealing with a situation in which the petitioners, (the then Governor of Meru County and the County Government itself) had wanted the adjudication process stopped in an area known as Ngaremara. In that petition issues of public participation, Jurisdiction and Applicable law arose at the initial stage where the petitioners had sought conservatory orders pending the hearing and determination of the application under a certificate of urgency. In my ruling of 26. 7.2017 I stated as follows;
“At this interlocutory stage this court is not seized of all the full facts as appertains the matter at hand. The pronouncement of rights and interests of the petitioners would therefore have to be determined in the main hearing and not at the interlocutory stage”.
9. Likewise, in this petition, the court needs to be seized of the full facts of the dispute. In particular, an averment has been made by the County Government of Isiolo that the notice has been amended of which the petitioner’s response was that there was deliberate confusion between County Assembly and Community Assembly. The court needs to grasp the nature and extent of the amended notice and this is an issue which ought to be canvassed in either the application or the petition.
10. I note that the parties have already taken directions on how the application shall be canvassed. In the circumstances, I decline to grant prayer 3 in the application at this stage.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 26TH FEBRUARY, 2020 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Abubakar for petitioners and also holding brief for Gitonga for Gitonga M for petitioners
Thuranira holding brief for Jirma for the interested party
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE