[2012] KEHC 842 (KLR)
The court found that the petition was a parallel proceeding concerning properties already subject to litigation in HCCC No. 80 of 2009. The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to determine matters of fundamental rights and freedoms but held that all issues regarding the title should be resolved in the existing suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 842 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: John Kiguru Karume; Respondent: Registrar of Titles; Respondent: Commissioner of Lands
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 547 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
- Outcome
- petition struck out
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Bill of Rights Enforcement, Jurisdiction of High Court, Parallel Proceedings, Title Revocation
- 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
John Kiguru Karume
Petitioner
Registrar of Titles
Respondent
Commissioner of Lands
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petition constitutes a parallel proceeding in respect of properties already subject to litigation in HCCC No. 80 of 2009.
- 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine matters of fundamental rights and freedoms in the context of property disputes.
- 3 Whether the petitioner should have sought amendment and joinder in the existing suit rather than filing a fresh petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petition was a parallel proceeding concerning properties already subject to litigation in HCCC No. 80 of 2009. The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction to determine matters of fundamental rights and freedoms but held that all issues regarding the title should be resolved in the existing suit to avoid duplicity and conflicting outcomes. The court noted that any grievances arising from the revocation of title could be addressed by amending the plaint and joining necessary parties in the ongoing suit, rather than initiating a separate constitutional petition. Consequently, the petition was struck out to preserve judicial economy and prevent abuse of process.
Court Disposition
petition struck out
Orders
- The petition is struck out with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Petition 547 of 2012 [if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
JOHN KIGURU KARUME …...….....….…….……… PETITIONER
AND
REGISTRAR OF TITLES ..……..................... 1ST RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS ….………..... 2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This suit cannot be permitted to proceed as it is a parallel proceeding in respect of the suit properties being LR No. 11514, 11513and11512which are the subject of litigation in HCCC No. 80 of 2009 John Kiguru Karume v Kenya Institute of Administration. As the suit concerns the same property which is to issue it is proper that all the issues concerning the title be determined in one suit.
2. In am aware that this is a case for the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms but I must point out that the High Court in all it manifest jurisdictions is entitled to hear and determine matters of fundamental rights and freedoms. This is part of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 165 (3) and an application of Articles 19 and 20 which are part of the Bill of Rights.
3. According to Ms Ajiambo, the Gazette Notice revoking the title was issued during the pendency of the suit. It is therefore proper that the High Court determining the matter have regard to action by the State made to undermine the petitioner’s cause of action. This may be achieved by a proper amendment of the plaint and joinder of the necessary party rather than filing another suit.
4. In the result the petition filed herewith is struck out with no order as to costs.
DATEDand DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 3rd December 2012.
D. S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Ms Ajiambo instructed by Kimamo Kuria Advocates for the petitioner ex-parte.