[2019] KEELC 4814 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the interim injunction sought by the applicant, reasoning that an order of status quo had already been granted in petition 6/11 and that granting further injunctive relief would prejudice litigants in the earlier petitions who have been in court for several years. The court emphasized the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4814 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwangaza L.P.O Self-Help Group; Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General; Respondent: The National Land Commission; Respondent: Kenya Airports Authority; Respondent: Isiolo County Government
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 1 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interim Injunction and Consolidation Application
- Outcome
- Interim injunction declined; consolidation deferred pending formal application.
- Legal Topics
- Right to Fair Hearing, Compulsory Acquisition, Status Quo Orders, Consolidation of Suits
- 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
Mwangaza L.P.O Self-Help Group
Applicant
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
The National Land Commission
Respondent
Kenya Airports Authority
Respondent
Isiolo County Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interim Injunction and Consolidation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant an interim injunction halting the titling process on the suit land pending inter-partes hearing.
- 2 Whether the three related petitions should be consolidated at this stage.
- 3 Whether granting the injunction would prejudice litigants in the earlier petitions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the interim injunction sought by the applicant, reasoning that an order of status quo had already been granted in petition 6/11 and that granting further injunctive relief would prejudice litigants in the earlier petitions who have been in court for several years. The court emphasized the need for all affected parties, particularly those in the earlier petitions, to be notified and given an opportunity to be heard before any further orders are made. The court also declined to consolidate the three petitions at this stage, directing instead that a formal application for consolidation be made and served on all parties. The court found that the petitioners are not...
Court Disposition
Interim injunction declined; consolidation deferred pending formal application.
Orders
- The application for interim injunction is declined.
- A formal application for consolidation to be made by the Attorney General and served on all parties in the related petitions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
PETITION NO. 1 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 3 (1), 22(1), (2) (b) & (d), AND 258 (1) & 2 (b) & (d) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 2(1), (2), (4), (5) & (6), 3, 10, 21, 22, 23 (1) & (3), 27(1), (2), (4), 40 (1) & (3), 159 (1) & (2), 162(1), (2) & (3), 165 (5) (b), 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
BETWEEN
MWANGAZA L.P.O SELF-HELP GROUP..................................PETITIONER
AND
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL................1ST RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION...........................2ND RESPONDENT
KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY.....................................3RD RESPONDENT
ISIOLO COUNTY GOVERNMENT...................................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 5. 1.2019 was filed under a certificate of urgency and was coming up for interparties hearing on 30. 1.2019. On 30. 1.2019, Counsels for respondents sought for time to put in their replying affidavits. Further, the Attorney General averred that the subject matter herein is related to two other cases petition 6/11 and petition 30/2016 and an application was hence made orally for consolidation of all these matters. The other two files are scheduled for mention on 6. 2.2019.
2. Petitioners counsel averred that the titling process is in progress with the rapid results initiative having only three months to complete the process. Citing the provisions of article 50 of the constitution, the applicants are praying for an injunction halting all the activities particularly the titling process on going on the suit land pending the inter-partes hearing of the application.
3. I have perused the two files petition 6 of 2011 and petition 30/2016and I find that indeed the subject matter is the same. In petition 6/11, the initial claimants were 77 but with time, the numbers rose into hundreds. In petition 30/2016 the claimants are 50, while in the present petition, there are 260 claimants.
Consolidation
4. All the claimants in the three petitions are staking entitlement to the suit land generally known as MWANGAZA area. The application to have all these matters consolidated could perhaps be reasonable. I say “PERHAPS” to express the uncertainty at this stage primarily because the claimants in the older two suits, petition 6/11 and petition 301/16 may not be aware of this suit and may want to give their comment on the issue of consolidation. It is not lost to this court that the claimants in petition 6/11 have been in the litigation arena for a period of over 7 years and that the matter is scheduled for settlement.
5. In light of the foregoing, I do hesitate to allow the prayer for consolidation at this stage. Instead, I direct that a formal application for consolidation be made by the Attorney General, whereby service will be effected upon the petitioners in the other two older files. Meanwhile, I direct that as much as it is practically possible, the three files are to be handled at the same time.
Interim orders of injunction
6. Article 50 (1) of the constitution stipulates that “every person has a right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of the law decided in a fair and public hearing……”.
7. However the entire provisions of the constitution have to be read in a whole-some manner. For instance article 24 (1) (d)of theconstitution provides that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual should not prejudice the rights of other persons.
8. I find that an order of status quo was granted on 15. 12. 2011 in petition 6/11 and the matter was scheduled for possible settlement in the very near future. It is my considered view that if the court was to grant prayer 4 in the present application, it would prejudice the litigants who have been in this court for the last 7 or so years without giving them an opportunity to be heard. It is paramount that the litigants in petition 6 of 2011 and in petition 30 of 2016 be made aware of this matter before issuance of any orders herein.
9. It is not lost to this court that one of the prayers in this petition is a declaratory order for petitioners to be compensated for their parcels of land which were allegedly compulsorily acquired. It follows that petitioners are not left without any remedy.
10. All in all, I decline to grant any interim orders of injunction at this stage.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 31ST JANUARY, 2019
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Odhiambo for petitioners
Kimaita for 3rd respondent
B. Kimathi for first respondent
K. Muriuki for 4th respondent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE