[2014] KEELC 530 (KLR)
The court found that the orders previously issued by Justice Majanja, which restrained the respondents and any other person from subdividing, transferring, or dealing with the suit properties and maintained the status quo, were still in force and sufficient to conserve the subject matter of the suit. As such, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELC 530 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kipapi Ole Tamaiyan; Applicant: Mailua Group Ranch; Respondent: George Ndula Meritei; Respondent: The Commissioner of Police; Respondent: The Director of C.I.D.; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: The Registrar of Lands
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 991 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Chamber Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Conservatory Orders
- Outcome
- applications dismissed
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Conservatory Orders, Status Quo Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Quiet Enjoyment, Land Disputes
- 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
Kipapi Ole Tamaiyan
Applicant
Mailua Group Ranch
Applicant
George Ndula Meritei
Respondent
The Commissioner of Police
Respondent
The Director of C.I.D.
Respondent
The Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
The Registrar of Lands
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Conservatory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to conservatory orders restraining the respondents from interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the petition.
- 2 Whether the existing status quo and conservatory orders already issued by the court are sufficient to protect the subject matter of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the orders previously issued by Justice Majanja, which restrained the respondents and any other person from subdividing, transferring, or dealing with the suit properties and maintained the status quo, were still in force and sufficient to conserve the subject matter of the suit. As such, the applications for additional conservatory orders were redundant. The court emphasized the need to avoid wasting judicial time on duplicative applications and directed the parties to proceed with the substantive hearing of the petition.
Court Disposition
applications dismissed
Orders
- The Chamber Summons dated 5th September 2012 and 17th September 2012 are dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND DIVISION
ELC. NO. 991 OF 2012
KIPAPI OLE TAMAIYAN ............................................................1STAPPLICANT
MAILUA GROUP RANCH.........................................................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
GEORGE NDULA MERITEI .................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF C.I.D..................................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION………...4TH RESPONDENT
THE REGISTRAR OF LANDS...........................................5TH RESPONDENT
RULING
Before this court are two applications for determination, one being the Chamber Summons dated 5th September 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “First Application”) and the second being also a Chamber Summons dated 17th September 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Application”).
The prayers sought in the two applications are similar, in a nutshell requesting the court to issue conservatory orders restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners’ quiet enjoyment of the parcel of land identified as Kajiado/Mailua/3072 and 3073 originally known as Kajiado/Mailua/1276 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) pending the hearing and determination of this Application and Petition.
Prayer No. 1 and 4 of the First Application were allowed by Justice Mabeya on 6th September 2012 leaving prayer nos. 2 and 3. The prayers contained in the Second Application were similar to those set out in the First Application.
Both the First and Second Applications were opposed. The 4th Respondent filed Grounds of Objection dated 27th September 2012.
Upon perusal of the court file, I noted that Justice Majanja issued the following orders on 27th September 2012:
“The respondents, jointly and severally and any other person is restrained from subdividing, transferring or in any way dealing with the properties known as KAJIADO/ MAILUA/976 and KAJIADO/ MAILUA/1276 and all subdivisions thereto pending further orders of the court.
The status quo currently obtaining on the suit property shall be maintained pending further orders of the Court.”
To the best of my knowledge, those orders are still in force to date and no further orders have been issued. Looking at these orders as against the conservatory orders requested for by the Petitioners in the First and Second Applications, I am of the opinion that Justice Majanja’s said orders suffice to conserve the subject matter of this suit being the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit. Accordingly, I see no need to address the two applications any further as this would be wasting valuable time which could be utilized to hear and determine this suit in its entirety.
I therefore dismiss the First and Second Applications. Costs shall be in the cause. Parties should now busy themselves to file the necessary papers relating to the Petition to facilitate the hearing and determination of the same as a matter of priority.
SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS _14th ____ DAY OF _March_2014
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE