[2018] KEELC 3234 (KLR)
The court found that the leave granted to file a substantive application for mandamus lapsed when the respondent failed to file the application within the prescribed period. Consequently, all interim orders, including the restriction on land parcel TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192, also lapsed. However, the restriction remained...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3234 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Muhada Imbunya; Respondent: District Land Registrar, Vihiga; Respondent: David Kalo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 8 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Substantive Application for Mandamus
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Removal of Land Restriction, Mandamus Orders, Lapse of Leave, Res Judicata, Land Registration, Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Joseph Muhada Imbunya
Applicant
District Land Registrar, Vihiga
Respondent
David Kalo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Substantive Application for Mandamus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the restriction registered on land parcel TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192 should be removed by order of the court.
- 2 Whether the leave granted to file a substantive application for mandamus lapsed, and the effect thereof.
- 3 Whether the application is res judicata and whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the leave granted to file a substantive application for mandamus lapsed when the respondent failed to file the application within the prescribed period. Consequently, all interim orders, including the restriction on land parcel TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192, also lapsed. However, the restriction remained on the register because the Land Registrar required a court order to remove it. While the respondent argued that the matter was res judicata and the court lacked jurisdiction, the court held that, in the interest of justice and to clarify the effect of the withdrawal and lapse of orders, it was proper to grant the order for removal of the restriction. The court thus ordered...
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The Vihiga District Land Registrar is ordered to remove the restriction registered on land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192.
- The costs of this application shall be borne by the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 8 OF 2017 (JR)
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS BY JOSEPH MUHANDA IMBUNYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF TITLE COMPRISING L.R. NO. TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, VIHIGA.
JOSEPH MUHADA IMBUNYA.................EXPARTE APPLICANT
VERSUS
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, VIHIGA.......1ST RESPONDENT
DAVID KALO......................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
This application is dated 28th December 2017 and is brought under order 53 rule 1 and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders;
1. That the honourable court be pleased to order the Vihiga District Land Registrar to remove the restriction registered on land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192.
2. That the costs of this application be provided for.
The applicant submitted that, he is the registered owner of land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192 (Annexed is a copy of the title deed marked DK1) That the applicant/respondent herein Joseph Muhadia Imbunya restricted his above mentioned parcel of land vide the case herein.That the applicant/respondent was granted restriction orders while seeking leave to apply for orders of mandamus against the Land Registrar Vihiga District. That the applicant/respondent never filed a substantive application for mandamus against the Land Registrar Vihiga County despite being granted leave to do so.That the period for filing the substantive application for mandamus elapsed long time ago.That the restriction orders filed by the applicant/respondent on his parcel of land are still in existence (Annexed is a search certificate marked DK2).That he prays that the Land Registrar be ordered to remove the restriction orders since the leave granted to the applicant/respondent elapsed upon his failure to file a substantive application for orders of mandamus against the Land Registrar Vihiga District. That the applicant/respondent has no proprietary interest in respect of land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192. That he has been restricted from dealing with his parcel of land due to the orders registered by the applicant/respondent. That the Land Registrar cannotremove the restriction orders unless they are ordered by the honourable court.
The respondent stated that the suit herein was determined by consent on 16th November 2017 when all orders issued herein were considered to have lapsed including the inhibition placed by the Land Registrar.The application isseeking similar orders, it is res judicata and this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised herein.The orders being sought by the applicant can only lie in a fresh suit.The application is thus frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed with costs.
This court has carefully considered both the applicant’s and the respondent’s submissions and the annnextures therein. The application is based on the following grounds that the honourable court issued orders restricting any dealings in respect of land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192 while granting the applicant/respondent leave to apply for orders of mandamus against the land Registrar Vihiga County. That the applicant/respondent failed to file the substantive application for mandamus within the period of 21 days granted. That the leave granted to the applicant/respondent elapsed when he failed to file the substantive application for mandamus. That all the subsequent orders elapsed when the applicant/respondent failed to file the substantive application for mandamus. That the restriction registered in respect of land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192 is still in force despite the fact that the orders had elapsed. That the Land Registrar cannot remove the restriction unless they are ordered by the honourable court. That it is in the interest of justice that the orders be removed to enable the 1st respondent/applicant to use his land without any restriction.
The respondent in opposing the application stated that the suit herein was determined by consent on 16th November 2017 when all orders issued herein were considered to have lapsed including the inhibition placed by the Land Registrar. The application is seeking similar orders, it is res judicata and this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised herein. Be that as it may, I find to meet the ends of justice it would be proper to clarify the meaning of the said withdrawal. I find that this application is merited and I grant the following orders;
1. That the Vihiga District Land Registrar to remove the restriction registered on land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192.
2. That the costs of this application be borne by the applicant.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY 2018.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE