[2018] KEELC 2712 (KLR)
The court found that while it has the discretion to stay criminal proceedings to prevent injustice and conflicting decisions where the subject matter overlaps with a civil suit, the applicant in this case was not a party to the substantive suit before the Environment and Land Court. The applicant had not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2712 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Merin Ole Tuyoto & 124 Others; Defendant: Chairman Limanet Group Ranch Committee; Defendant: District Land Registrar; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General; Defendant: Danson Rikana Sanoe
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 246 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Criminal Proceedings
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Land Ownership Disputes, Group Ranch Membership, Supervisory Jurisdiction
- 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
Merin Ole Tuyoto & 124 Others
Plaintiff
Chairman Limanet Group Ranch Committee
Defendant
District Land Registrar
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Danson Rikana Sanoe
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Criminal Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court should exercise its supervisory powers to stay criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate's Court relating to land in dispute.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief when not a party to the substantive suit before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while it has the discretion to stay criminal proceedings to prevent injustice and conflicting decisions where the subject matter overlaps with a civil suit, the applicant in this case was not a party to the substantive suit before the Environment and Land Court. The applicant had not demonstrated membership in the group ranch nor sought to be enjoined as a plaintiff. In the absence of evidence of membership or proper joinder, the applicant could not benefit from the relief sought. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 14th March, 2018 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 246 OF 2017
FORMERLY NAKURU HCC NO. 219 OF 2011
MERIN OLE TUYOTO & 124 OTHERS..................................PLAINTIFFS
-VERSUS-
THE CHAIRMAN LIMANET GROUP
RANCH COMMITTEE........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
DISTRCIT LAND REGISTRAR........................................2ND DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL................................3RD DEFENDANT
DANSON RIKANA SANOE..............................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The Application before me is the Notice of Motion dated 14th March, 2018 which was brought under section 6, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant seeks orders that pending the hearing and determination of the suit there be a stay of proceedings in Narok Criminal Case no. 715 of 2016 Republic –Versus-Parselian Ole Sururu. The Application is based on the ground that the Applicant had filed the suit herein with 124 others and presently resides on parcel No. CIS- MARA/ILMASHARIANI/MORIJO/48 and that the complainant in the aforesaid Criminal Case was fraudulently registered as a proprietor of land parcel NO. CIS MARA/ILMASHARIANI/ MORIJO/1304while she was not a member of the Limanet Ranch. He further contends that the said parcel is part of CIS MARA ILMASHARIANI/48 which is the subject of the substantive suit before this court and that if the criminal proceedings are not stayed he will suffer irreparable loss.
The Application was opposed by way of a Replying Affidavit that was sworn by one Sachwa Ole Naeni who is the secretary of the group ranch. He contends that the Application is based on hearsay and full of unsubstantiated facts. He states that the complainant are strangers and contends that the accused person in Criminal Case No. 715 of 2016 who is Parselian Ole Sururu is not among the original plaintiff and he has never been a member of the group ranch. He further contends that the accused name is not among the plaintiff’s and he did not seek to be enjoined as a party or co-plaintiff and hence he should not benefit or be granted the orders sought.
I have read the Application before me and I have heard submissions made by counsel on behalf of the parties herein and the issue for determination before me is whether the court should exercise its supervisory powers of the Magistrate’s court to order for stay of proceedings which are criminal in nature. In the instant Application the Applicant seeks the Environment and Land Court to stay proceedings before the Narok Magistrate’s Court. I have read the pleadings filed in the substantive suit and the charge sheet that was annexed to the Application. I find that the subject matter in both is in respect of land parcel No. Cis Mara/Ilmashariani/Morijo/48 which is before the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination. In view of that I find that this is a case in which the court can exercise its powers and its discretion to avoid an injustice to be occasioned and avoid the issuance of conflicting decisions.
Having found that the court can exercise the said discretion the other issue is to establish out whether the Applicant is a party to the suit. The respondent contends that the Applicant is not a member of the Group Ranch as claimed and that he has not sought leave of the court to be enjoined as a party to the substantive proceedings and thus not entitled to relief sought.
I had looked at the original plaint that was filed on the 12th September, 2011 and I had not found the Applicant as one of the Plaintiff’s neither did he make any application later to be enjoined as a plaintiff. The Applicant in his Application did not attach any extract from the register of members to show that he is indeed a member of the Limanet group ranch and in the absence of the above I find that the Applicant cannot benefit from a cause that he is not a party to.
The upshot of the above is that I dismiss the applicant’s Application dated 14th March, 2018 with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court atNAROKon this6thday ofJuly, 2018
Mohammed Noor Kullow
Judge
6/7/18
In the presence of:
Mr Kambo holding brief for Mr.Ndeda for the applicant
N/A for the respondent
CA:Chuma
Mohammed Noor Kullow
Judge
6/7/18