[2023] KEELC 18419 (KLR)
The court determined that, in the absence of a current certified copy of the title or a current search showing the present status of the title to the suit property, it is absolutely necessary to establish the current status before rendering a final judgment. Exercising its discretion under Section 22(b) of the Civil...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 18419 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Njeri Mburu (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Karugu Guandai); Defendant: Bob Robert Drani (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Patrick Futo Drani)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 717 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Re Opening of Case and Issuance of Witness Summons Suo Moto
- Outcome
- Directions on delivery of judgment vacated; case re-opened; witness summons to be issued to Director in Charge of Land Administration and Chief Land Registrar to clarify status of title.
- Judges
- MD Mwangi
- Legal Topics
- Title Verification, Production of Evidence, Court Suo Motu Powers
- 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
Mary Njeri Mburu (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Karugu Guandai)
Plaintiff
Bob Robert Drani (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Patrick Futo Drani)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Re Opening of Case and Issuance of Witness Summons Suo Moto
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can suo moto re-open a case to call witnesses for clarification on the status of land title before rendering judgment.
- 2 Whether the absence of a current certified copy of title or search justifies vacating directions on delivery of judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, in the absence of a current certified copy of the title or a current search showing the present status of the title to the suit property, it is absolutely necessary to establish the current status before rendering a final judgment. Exercising its discretion under Section 22(b) of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 173 of the Evidence Act, and guided by precedent, the court vacated its earlier order on delivery of judgment and re-opened the case. The court directed that witness summons be issued to the Director in Charge of Land Administration, Nairobi, and the Chief Land Registrar to clarify the current status of the title to the suit property, ensuring that...
Court Disposition
Directions on delivery of judgment vacated; case re-opened; witness summons to be issued to Director in Charge of Land Administration and Chief Land Registrar to clarify status of title.
Orders
- The court vacates its earlier order on delivery of judgment.
- The case is re-opened to enable the Director in Charge of Land Administration and the Chief Land Registrar in Nairobi to appear as witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Mburu (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Karugu Guandai) v Drani (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Patrick Futo Drani) (Environment & Land Case 717 of 2015) [2023] KEELC 18419 (KLR) (29 June 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 18419 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 717 of 2015
MD Mwangi, J
June 29, 2023
Between
Mary Njeri Mburu (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Karugu Guandai)
Plaintiff
and
Bob Robert Drani (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Patrick Futo Drani)
Defendant
Ruling
(On re-opening of the case and application of section 22(b) of the Civil Procedure Act by the court suo moto) 1. This case was filed way back in the year 1993. It is premised on an agreement made on September 25, 1990 for sale of four (4) acres of land out of the parcel of land known as LR No 1160/156 Langata, Nairobi. This is well over 30 years ago. The suit was originally filed in the High Court at Nairobi. It was transferred to this court in the year 2015, hence the case No ELCC 717 of 2015.
2. To enable the court, deliver on its mandate of doing justice to all and in order to decide on the dispute with finality, it is necessary that the court be appraised on the current status of the title to the suit property. Indeed, rule 6 of order 21 requires that a certified copy of the title be produced to the court where there is a prayer for a judgment the grant of which would result in some alteration to the title of land registered under any written law concerning the registration of title to land.
3. None of the parties in this matter produced the current certified copy of the title or a current search showing the present status of the title. The court considers its absolutely necessary to establish the current status of the title, before rendering a final judgment in this matter.
4. Accordingly, and for purposes establishing the status of the title as aforesaid, the court will on its own motion vacate the directions on delivery of judgment, re-open the case and issue witness summons to the Director in charge of Land Administration, Nairobi and the Chief Land Registrar to clarify on the current status of the title of the suit property herein, on a date to be set by the court.
Legal Basis of the Ruling. 5. As this court stated in the case of Jeremy Mark Block vs The Kenya Forest Service & Others (ELC Pet 1396 of 2014), the law allows the court to, on its own motion and at any stage of the proceedings to call a witness. However, this is a discretion that must only be invoked where it is absolutely necessary for the just determination of the case and with great caution. It is also appropriate that the parties in the case be given a right to cross-examine the witness called by the court in this manner.
6. Section 22(b) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of any party to,“Either on its own motion or on an application by any party to issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid.”
7. The Evidence Act at section 173 too empowers a judge or a magistrate, in order to obtain proper evidence, to ask any question, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact and to order the production of any document or thing.
8. I consider this case one such exceptional case that calls for the exercise of the court’s discretion for purposes of the just and conclusive determination of the dispute between the parties.
9. The court therefore vacates its earlier order on delivery of a judgment and re-opens the case to enable the Director in Charge of Land Administration and the Chief Land Registrar in Nairobi appear as a witnesses to appraise the court of the status of the title to the suit property LR No 1160/156.
10. The court will issue appropriate witness summons to the Director in Charge of Land Administration, Nairobi and the Chief Land Registrar or his duly authorized representative to testify before the court on the status of the title to the suit property LR No 1160/156 on an appropriate date.
11. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2023. M.D. MWANGIJUDGEIn the virtual presence of:Ms. Mwandumbo for the Plaintiff.Mr. Nthei holding brief for Mrs. Lumumba for the Defendant.Court Assistant – Yvette.M.D. MWANGIJUDGE