[2018] KEELC 3727 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3727 (KLR)

The court found that the Deputy Registrar's scene visit report was incomplete because it failed to include parcel No. Kiirua Nkando/326, which was specifically required by the court's earlier directions. This omission rendered the report inconclusive and unsuitable as a basis for determining the pending...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3727 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fredrick T. Phares Rutere; Defendant: Lucia M’Muchiri; Defendant: Kirema M’Muchiri; Defendant: Joy M’Muchiri
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 316 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Dispute / Interlocutory Ruling on Scene Visit Report and Directions
Outcome
Ruling deferred pending clarification on omission of parcel No. Kiirua Nkando/326 in the scene visit report.
Legal Topics
Land Ownership, Scene Visit Reports, Court Directions, Parcel Identification
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Ownership Scene Visit Reports Court Directions Parcel Identification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick T. Phares Rutere

Plaintiff

Lucia M’Muchiri

Defendant

Kirema M’Muchiri

Defendant

Joy M’Muchiri

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Dispute / Interlocutory Ruling on Scene Visit Report and Directions

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar's scene visit report adequately captured the relevant parcels of land as directed by the court.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of parcel No. Kiirua Nkando/326 in the report affects the court's ability to make a ruling on the applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Deputy Registrar's scene visit report was incomplete because it failed to include parcel No. Kiirua Nkando/326, which was specifically required by the court's earlier directions. This omission rendered the report inconclusive and unsuitable as a basis for determining the pending applications. The court emphasized that both parties and their advocates had a duty to ensure that the correct parcels were identified and included in the report. As a result, the court could not proceed to make a substantive ruling on the applications until the parties clarified the omission and ensured compliance with the court's orders.

Court Disposition

Ruling deferred pending clarification on omission of parcel No. Kiirua Nkando/326 in the scene visit report.

Orders

  • Ruling on the two applications is put on hold until parties clarify why land parcel No. 326 is not mentioned in the Deputy Registrar's report.