[2016] KEHC 755 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had established an arguable case for judicial review, as the Land Adjudication Officer appeared to have acted outside his jurisdiction by making a decision affecting parcels of land not subject to the objection and by entertaining an objection against a deceased person without...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 755 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josphat Mbaabu Anampiu; Applicant: Stephen Ntongai Anampiu; Applicant: Joel Mutiga Anampiu; Applicant: Ezekiel Mutembei; Interested Party: Ndegwa Kamuuru; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East (Akaiga Adjudication Section); Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 27 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Interim Reliefs
- Outcome
- Leave to apply for judicial review granted; leave to operate as stay of proceedings and implementation of impugned decision; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Judicial Review, Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, Administrative 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
Josphat Mbaabu Anampiu
Applicant
Stephen Ntongai Anampiu
Applicant
Joel Mutiga Anampiu
Applicant
Ezekiel Mutembei
Applicant
Ndegwa Kamuuru
Interested Party
Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East (Akaiga Adjudication Section)
Respondent
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Interim Reliefs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against the 1st respondent's decision in objection No. 835 Akaiga Adjudication Section.
- 2 Whether the 1st respondent acted ultra vires by making a decision affecting parcels not subject to the objection.
- 3 Whether the objection proceedings against a deceased person without succession proceedings are lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had established an arguable case for judicial review, as the Land Adjudication Officer appeared to have acted outside his jurisdiction by making a decision affecting parcels of land not subject to the objection and by entertaining an objection against a deceased person without succession proceedings. The applicants were not parties to the objection, nor were they notified or heard, raising issues of procedural fairness and legality. The court therefore granted leave to apply for judicial review and ordered that the leave operate as a stay of the impugned decision and its implementation.
Court Disposition
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; leave to operate as stay of proceedings and implementation of impugned decision; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicants to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against the 1st respondent's decision in objection No. 835 Akaiga Adjudication Section dated 5/8/2016.
- Leave granted shall operate as a stay of the proceedings, decision, and implementation of the decision of the 1st respondent in objection No. 835 Akaiga Adjudication Section dated 5/8/2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND CONSOLIDATION ACT CAP 283, LAND ADJUDICATION ACT CAP 284 LAWS OF KENYA, LAND REGISTRATION ACT CAP 3 AND LAND ACT CAP 6 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR CERTIONARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
JOSPHAT MBAABU ANAMPIU.................................................1ST APPLICANT
STEPHEN NTONGAI ANAMPIU.................................................2ND APPLICANT
JOEL MUTIGA ANAMPIU …......................................................3RD APPLICANT
EZEKIEL MUTEMBEI …............................................................4TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
NDEGWA KAMUURU ….....................................................INTERESTED PARTY
IN THE LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER TIGANIA
EAST (AKAIGA ADJUDICATION SECTION).....................1ST RESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL......................2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This application is dated 23/09/2016. It seeks orders:-
1. That matter be certified as urgent.
2. That notice to the Registrar be dispensed with in the 1st instance.
3. The Court be pleased to grant leave to apply for Judicial Review for orders of Certiorari to remove into this Court the proceedings and decision of the objection No. 835 Akaiga Adjudication Section dated 5/8/2016.
4. That the applicant be granted leave to apply Judicial Review seeking Orders of prohibition to the effect that the 1st respondent be debarred from implementing his decision made on 5/8/2016 in regard to objection No. 835 Akaiga Adjudication Section and orders of mandamus compelling the 1st respondent to return the suit land to its original location, reverse any registration and return the original land to applicants.
5. That grant of leave to operate as a stay of the proceedings, decision and implementation of the decision of 1st respondent in objection No. 835 Akaiga Adjudication Section dated 5/8/2016 .
6. Costs of application.
2. It is supported by a statement of facts and by an affidavit Verifying facts sworn by the 1st applicant which states as follows: -
1. That I am the applicant herein hence competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That I am registered owner of parcel No. 2626 Akaiga Adjudication Section measuring about 2. 20 acres.
3. That my father JUSTUS KANAMPIU M'UMBUTHU now deceased owns parcel No. 480 subject of this case.
4. That the summons and objection was in respect of parel No. 480. Annexed are copies of the objection proceedings and decision and consent to file suit thereof marked JMA 1 and 2.
5. That gathering in this area was done in 1968 and the respondent for over 45 years has never lodged any objections or claim over the land
6. That recently and without any justifiable cause the respondent filed objection No. 835 against a deceased person my father.
7. That the objection was not about Number 2676, 2677, 2678 and 2679 in which the DLASO subtracted or reduced 35 points from each portion.
8. That the registered owners of the above parcels 2676 -2679 were not parties of the said objection, nor called as witnesses nor informed of such case.
9. That the decision by DLASO was above his jurisdiction as he had no powers to interfere with my parcel of land since there was no filed objection against my land 2676.
10. The DLASO was extremely malicious as the case was heard within one day and decision made within 3 days.
11. The respondent did not give resown why from 1968 to date he never sued my father only to do so after his demise.
12. That I need the DLASO to be ordered to return my land and his decision should not be implemented.
13. That if implemented then he should be compelled to return the land to me.
14. That no succession cause or citation was ever filed in respect of my deceased father hence filing an objection against him is highly against the law, illegal and irregular.
15. That the entire objection case is however unjustified and should be declared null and void and should be quashed.
16. That the acts of DLASO has caused me and others to suffer irreparable loss by losing land that we shall not be able to recover back.
17. That all what is deponed to herein above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
3. I have perused the pleadings and heard Mrs Kaume , the Advocate representing the Applicants.
4. Prayers 3,4,and 5 are granted.
5. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C.A Daniel/James
Mrs. Kaume for the Applicants.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE