[2018] KEELC 4715 (KLR)
The court cannot proceed to write and deliver judgment until clarifications are provided regarding the missing proceedings from March 2001 to November 2011, the admissibility of oral evidence and scene visit records taken before 1999, the status of all applications in the file (especially that of 1999), the process...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4715 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mburugu Kioga; Respondent: District Lands Adjudication Officer-Meru North; Respondent: Director of Land Adjudication, Kenya; Interested Party: Stephen Mubichi Paul; Interested Party: Richard Gichunge; Interested Party: Elizabeth Kalweo; Interested Party: Geoffreey Mungathia Mukunga; Interested Party: Jackson Kalweo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 49 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Pre Judgment Directions; Clarifications Sought Before Judgment
- Outcome
- Further directions deferred; clarifications required before judgment.
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Judicial Review Procedure, Missing Court Records, Oral Evidence, Joinder of Parties
- 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
Mburugu Kioga
Applicant
District Lands Adjudication Officer-Meru North
Respondent
Director of Land Adjudication, Kenya
Respondent
Stephen Mubichi Paul
Interested Party
Richard Gichunge
Interested Party
Elizabeth Kalweo
Interested Party
Geoffreey Mungathia Mukunga
Interested Party
Jackson Kalweo
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Pre Judgment Directions; Clarifications Sought Before Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Should the court consider oral evidence and scene visit proceedings taken before 1999 in the absence of records for 2001-2011?
- 2 Are the missing proceedings from March 2001 to November 2011 material to the judgment?
- 3 Were all applications in the file, especially that of 1999, heard and determined?
Ratio Decidendi
The court cannot proceed to write and deliver judgment until clarifications are provided regarding the missing proceedings from March 2001 to November 2011, the admissibility of oral evidence and scene visit records taken before 1999, the status of all applications in the file (especially that of 1999), the process and timing of the joinder of interested parties, and the date of death of the 2nd Interested Party. The integrity of the judicial process requires that the judgment be based on a complete and verified record, and the parties are directed to address these gaps before further directions are issued.
Court Disposition
Further directions deferred; clarifications required before judgment.
Orders
- Parties to clarify whether oral evidence and scene visit proceedings prior to 1999 should be considered in the judgment.
- Parties to indicate if they possess missing proceedings and orders for the period March 2001 to November 2011.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
MISC. APP NO 49 OF 1995
MBURUGU KIOGA..................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DISTRICT LANDS ADJUDICATION
OFFICER-MERU NORTH............................................1ST RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION, KENYA.....2ST RESPONDENT
STEPHEN MUBICHI PAUL..............................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
RICHARD GICHUNGE.....................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
ELIZABETH KALWEO....................................3RD INTERESTED PARTY
GEOFFREEY MUNGATHIA
MUKUNGA.................................PROPOSED 4TH INTERESTED PARTY
JACKSON KALWEO.......................................5TH INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
1. This matter is due for Judgment, directions to that effect having been given on 06:12:17. Upon perusal of the file, I have deemed it fit to put on hold the writing of the Judgment since there is a need to have some clarifications regarding this matter.
2. First and fore most, a question arises as to whether the Court, while writing the Judgment should make reference to the proceedings before 1999, whereby oral evidence was taken and there was even a scene visit? I pose this question on account of the following;
a) The proceedings from March 2001 to November 2011 are missing yet the 4th Interested Party has alleged that there was an order of the Court given on 16:12:04 where the case was to start de novo.
b) The Interested Parties came into the picture after the oral evidence had been taken and scene visit was conducted.
c) There are orders /directions taken on 25. 09. 13 where it was agreed that this Judicial Review Motion be canvassed by way of Written Submission. The Counsels therefore ought to clarify whether the oral evidence and scene visit proceedings are to be taken into account or not.
3. The Parties are notified that the hand written record of the Court runs from 18. 11. 11. to date. The file also contains the typed (uncertified) proceedings running from 30. 08. 1995 to 16. 03. 2001. There are no records at all for the period 17. 03. 2001 to 17. 11. 11. It is necessary for the counsels to indicate if any of them have such proceedings and orders appertaining to this period. If the file was reconstructed, what are the documents that were availed to the Court?
4. Whether all the application in the file were heard and determined especially that one of 1999.
5. When did the 2nd Interested Party die?
6. When and how were the Interested Party’s brought on board.
7. It is after these clarifications that the Court will give further directions on the writing of the Judgment.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 23rd JANUARY, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
B. Kimathi H/B for Kiome for Exparte Applicant
B. Kimathi for Respondent present
B.G Kariuki for 1st Interested Party
Rimita for 3rd and 5th Interested Party
HON. L. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE