[2023] KEELC 18583 (KLR)
The court found that although the original originating summons did not specifically seek orders for execution of transfer and Land Control Board consent forms by the Deputy Registrar, it was fair and just to grant such orders to give effect to the judgment and decree for adverse possession. The court relied on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 18583 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stanley Taptoyei Maru; Defendant: Emily Jeptarus Muchai; Defendant: Benjamin Kiprotich Tanui
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E002 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Execution of Transfer Documents
- Outcome
- Application allowed in terms of prayers (2) and (3); no order as to costs.
- Judges
- MN Mwanyale
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Execution of Court Orders, Transfer of Land, Court Powers Under Civil Procedure Act
- 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
Stanley Taptoyei Maru
Plaintiff
Emily Jeptarus Muchai
Defendant
Benjamin Kiprotich Tanui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Execution of Transfer Documents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar should be authorized to execute transfer and subdivision documents on behalf of the 1st Defendant to give effect to the decree for adverse possession.
- 2 Whether the court can grant orders not expressly sought in the original originating summons to effectuate its judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the original originating summons did not specifically seek orders for execution of transfer and Land Control Board consent forms by the Deputy Registrar, it was fair and just to grant such orders to give effect to the judgment and decree for adverse possession. The court relied on section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, which allows the court to nominate a person to execute documents where a party refuses or neglects to do so. The application was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that the orders sought were necessary to effectuate the transfer of 2 acres to the applicant as decreed. Accordingly, the court allowed the application to the extent of...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in terms of prayers (2) and (3); no order as to costs.
Orders
- The Deputy Registrar is authorized to execute the application for consent for subdivision, mutation forms, transfer forms, and all other transfer documents on behalf of the 1st Defendant to give effect to the decree for subdivision and transfer of parcel No. Nandi/Kebulonik/344.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Maru v Muchai & another (Environment & Land Case E002 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 18583 (KLR) (6 July 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 18583 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment & Land Case E002 of 2021
MN Mwanyale, J
July 6, 2023
Between
Stanley Taptoyei Maru
Plaintiff
and
Emily Jeptarus Muchai
1st Defendant
Benjamin Kiprotich Tanui
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. The application before me is the one dated April 14, 2023 seeking for orders that;i)Spentii)That, the Deputy Registry of this Court be and is hereby ordered/authorized to execute;a)Application for consent for subdivisionb)Mutation formsc)Transfer formsd)And all other transfer forms.iii.That the deputy registrar of this Honourable Court do sign the said documents on behalf of the 1st Defendant/Respondent in order to give effect to the decree to have the parcel No. Nandi/Kebulonik/344 subdivided.iv.That, Costs of this application be provided.
2. The application is premised on the grounds appearing on the face of it together with supporting affidavit deponed by Stanley Kiptoyoi Maru on April 14, 2023.
3. This application was brought under certificate of urgency and placed before the duty Judge in Eldoret who directed the Applicant to serve the application within 7 days. On the date of inter-partes hearing, Mr. Maritim Counsel holding brief for Mr. Rotich for the Respondent indicated that they were not opposed to the application.
4. Although the application is unopposed, it is the duty of this Court to subject the same to a merit evaluation in line with the applicable laws and principles.
5. The application is brought under section 98 of the civil Procedure Act which provides that;“98. Execution of instruments by orders of court.Where any person neglects or refused to comply with a decree or order directing him to execute any conveyance, contract or other document, to endorse any negotiable instrument, the Court may, on such terms, and conditions, if any, as it may determine, order that the conveyance, contract or other document shall be executed or that the negotiable instrument shall be endorsed by such person as the Court may nominate for that purpose, and a conveyance contract, document or instrument so executed or endorsed shall operated and be for all purposes available as if it had been executed or endorsed by the person originally directed to execute or endorse it.”
6. This provision of the law empowers the court to elect the Deputy Registrar to execute and/or endorse any instrument of transfer in the event a person refused to comply with a decree or order of the court.
7. The effect of the decree of the Court issued herein, on February 8, 2023, annexed to the application, was that the Applicants had obtained title in respect of 2 acres of the suit property by way of adverse possession and were to be registered as proprietors after subdivision of the said property.
8. A perusal of the Originating Summons dated August 2, 2021, this court notes that the prayers sought only related to adverse possession and there was no such prayer for execution of transfer as well as Land Control Board consent forms by the Deputy Registrar. This explains why no such orders were made in the judgment of this Court delivered on December 20, 2022. The Plaintiff’s were awarded only what was prayed for vide their Originating Summons. Nevertheless, this Court finds it fair and just to grant the orders sought in this application in order to give effect to the judgement and decree of this court.
9. In the premises, I hereby allow the notice of motion dated April 14, 2023 in terms of prayers (2) and (3) thereof. There shall be no orders as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AND KAPSABET THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY 2023. HON. M. N. MWANYALE,JUDGE.In the absence of parties