[2023] KEELC 18124 (KLR)
The court found that the application was unopposed, and the evidence presented by the applicants was uncontested. The applicants had complied with the procedural requirements for change of advocates post-judgment under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The supporting affidavit and annexed documents...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 18124 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Matumbi; Plaintiff: Julius Muthuri (substituted by Lilian Kendi Muthuri); Respondent: Isaac Muriuki; Respondent: Stephen Thiuri; Interested Party: Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 74 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Discharge of Charge and Change of Advocates
- Outcome
- Application allowed in terms of prayers 2, 4, and 5. Each party to bear their own costs.
- Judges
- CK Yano
- Legal Topics
- Change of Advocate Post Judgment, Discharge of Charge, Registration of Mutation, Execution of Decree, Land Title Procedure
- 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
George Matumbi
Plaintiff
Julius Muthuri (substituted by Lilian Kendi Muthuri)
Plaintiff
Isaac Muriuki
Respondent
Stephen Thiuri
Respondent
Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Discharge of Charge and Change of Advocates
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the firm of Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates should be granted leave to come on record for the plaintiffs after judgment.
- 2 Whether the court should order Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited to discharge the legal charge registered against LR No Kiirua/Naari/1105.
- 3 Whether the Land Registrar should be ordered to register the mutation form and dispense with the production of the original title deed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was unopposed, and the evidence presented by the applicants was uncontested. The applicants had complied with the procedural requirements for change of advocates post-judgment under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The supporting affidavit and annexed documents established that the decree had been issued and steps taken to implement it, but registration of the mutation form was impeded by the legal charge and lack of the original title deed. In the absence of any opposition or contrary evidence, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave for the new advocates to come on record and to issue the orders necessary to facilitate the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in terms of prayers 2, 4, and 5. Each party to bear their own costs.
Orders
- Leave is granted for the firm of Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates to come on record for the plaintiffs in place of Mithega & Kariuki Advocates.
- The Land Registrar Meru Central Lands registry is ordered to make an entry into the register of LR No Kiirua/Naari/1105, discharging the legal charge registered on October 31, 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
Matumbi & another v Muriuki & another; Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 74 of 2009) [2023] KEELC 18124 (KLR) (21 June 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 18124 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment & Land Case 74 of 2009
CK Yano, J
June 21, 2023
Between
George Matumbi
1st Plaintiff
Julius Muthuri
2nd Plaintiff
and
Isaac Muriuki
1st Respondent
Stephen Thiuri
2nd Respondent
and
Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited
Interested Party
Ruling
1. The applicants herein moved this court vide an application dated November 11, 2022 brought pursuant to section 1A,1B, 3, 3A, 34 & 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act and order 9 rule 9 & 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules wherein they seek for orders that:1. That the application be certified urgent and the same be heard expeditiously2. That the firm of M/s Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates be granted leave to come on record for the plaintiffs in the place of M/s Mithega & Kariuki Advocates.3. That an order be issued, directing the interested party, Equity Bank (Kenya) Ltd, to issue a discharge of charge for the legal charge registered on October 31, 2014 against LR NoKiirua/Naari/1105. 4.That the land registrar Meru Central Lands registry be ordered to make an entry into the register of LR No Kiirua/Naari/1105, discharging the legal charge registered on October 31, 2014. 5.That the Land Registrar Meru Central Lands registry, do dispense with the production of the original title deed for LR No Kiirua/Naari/1105 while registering the mutation form.6. That costs be in the course.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Lilian Kendi Muthuri and is premised on the following grounds-;a.That the decree was issued herein on July 10, 2019 after the defendants failed to defend the suit.b.That on September 29, 2020, an order was issued authorizing the Deputy Registrar to execute all documents to implement the decree of July 10, 2019. c.That thereafter the Deputy Registrar executed a Land Control Board application for consent to survey the suit land pursuant to the decree of July 10, 2019 and a consent was issued on June 23, 2022. d.That the Deputy Registrar also executed the mutation form which was presented before the County Surveyor, Meru and was approved on October 4, 2022. e.The plaintiffs’ entitlement as per the decree was designated as Number Kiirua/Naari/1105 measuring 1. 012 Ha (2. 5 acres) in the approved mutation form.f.The approved mutation form cannot be registered in view of the legal charge registered in favour of Equity Bank (Kenya) Ltd on October 31, 2014 and in the absence of the original title deed.g.That the plaintiff are anxious to enjoy the fruits of their judgment of July 10, 2019 hence this application.
3. In her supporting affidavit sworn on November 11, 2022 Lilian Kendi Muthuri avers that she is the legal representative of the estate of Julius Muthuri, the 2nd plaintiff herein and therefore competent to make and swear the affidavit. That she was substituted in place of the 2nd plaintiff vide an order made on September 29, 2020 in this matter. The deponent has reiterated the above grounds and annexed copies of the decree, order, application for consent and the resultant consent, mutation form, search certificate and a letter dated October 6, 2022 and avers that the applicants are anxious to enjoy the fruits of their judgment, hence this application.
4. There is an affidavit of service filed on February 6, 2023 showing that the firm of M/s Mithega & Kariuki advocates who was previously representing the applicants was served on November 16, 2022 while Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited, the interested party herein was served on November 24, 2022 but none of them filed a response, hence the application is not opposed. The applicants counsel urged the court to grant the orders sought, arguing that orders of court are not issued in vain and the decree holders should enjoy the fruits of their judgment.
5. I have considered the application. As already stated, the application is not opposed. I have also perused the documents annexed to the affidavit in support of the application and the court record. The issue for determination are whether the orders sought should be granted or not.
6. The firm of M/S Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates have sought for leave to come on record for the plaintiff in the place of M/S Mithega & Kariuki Advocates who previously represented the plaintiffs.
7. It is not in dispute that the said advocates came on record after the delivery of judgment and need to seek leave of court as per the previsions of order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides that:“When there is a change of advocate, or when a party decides to act in person having previously engaged an advocate, after judgment has been passed, such change or intention to act in person shall not be effected without an order of the court -;Upon an application with notice to all the parties, or upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the proposed incoming advocate or party intending to act in person as the case may be.”
8. The provisions of order 9 rule 9 allow the court to grant leave upon an application with notice to all the parties or upon a consent filed between the outgoing advocate and the proposed incoming advocate or party intending to act in person. Rule 10 allows the said prayer seeking leave to be brought together with other prayers.
9. I have perused the application herein and confirm that the prayer for leave for the firm of M/S Mwirigi Kaburu & Co Advocates has not been contested since the application is unopposed, thus the said firm is granted leave to come on record in terms of prayer 2 of the application herein.
10. On the second issue, there is no response filed despite the application having been served as evidenced by the affidavit of service dated February 2, 2023. The evidence by the applicants is not controverted. Accordingly, the matters contained in the application and the supporting affidavit are not contested.
11. Consequently, the application is allowed in terms of prayer 2, 4 and 5. Each party to bear their own costs.
12. It is so ordered.
DATES SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2023IN THE PRESENCE OFCourt Assistant – V. KiraguMwirigi Kaburu for plaintiff/applicantNo appearance for defendantsNo appearance for interested party/respondentC.K YANOJUDGE