[2015] KEELC 460 (KLR)
The court found that the inclusion of LR NO.5046/5 in the judgment and decree was a clear error apparent on the face of the record, as neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant had claimed any interest in that parcel of land in their pleadings. The Interested Parties, who reside on LR NO.5046/5 and were not parties...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 460 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nelson Kazungu Chai; Plaintiff: Lawrence Kazazi Nzau; Plaintiff: Wycliffe Tembo Mwangombe; Plaintiff: Said Hassan Hemeed; Plaintiff: Ibrahim Abdi; Plaintiff: Festus Mwarere Lenga; Plaintiff: Kenga Kilumo Chari; Plaintiff: LeonnoX Mkutano Ngala; Plaintiff: Shadrack NdHuli; Plaintiff: Prudence Mapenzi Mwangori; Defendant: Pwani University; Applicant: Geoffrey Nyangau Gitaga; Applicant: Simon Mramba David; Applicant: Festus Wanje Mlanda
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 70 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; judgment and decree reviewed to expunge LR NO.5046/5 from suit properties.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Record, Land Ownership Disputes, Eviction Orders
- 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
Nelson Kazungu Chai
Plaintiff
Lawrence Kazazi Nzau
Plaintiff
Wycliffe Tembo Mwangombe
Plaintiff
Said Hassan Hemeed
Plaintiff
Ibrahim Abdi
Plaintiff
Festus Mwarere Lenga
Plaintiff
Kenga Kilumo Chari
Plaintiff
LeonnoX Mkutano Ngala
Plaintiff
Shadrack NdHuli
Plaintiff
Prudence Mapenzi Mwangori
Plaintiff
Pwani University
Defendant
Geoffrey Nyangau Gitaga
Applicant
Simon Mramba David
Applicant
Festus Wanje Mlanda
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inclusion of LR NO.5046/5 in the judgment and decree was an error apparent on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment to expunge LR NO.5046/5 from the list of suit properties.
- 3 Whether the Interested Parties, who were not part of the original proceedings, are entitled to relief by way of review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the inclusion of LR NO.5046/5 in the judgment and decree was a clear error apparent on the face of the record, as neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant had claimed any interest in that parcel of land in their pleadings. The Interested Parties, who reside on LR NO.5046/5 and were not parties to the original proceedings, were adversely affected by the erroneous inclusion of their property in the eviction order. The court held that it retains jurisdiction to review its own judgment to correct such an error under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendant did not oppose the application, further supporting the absence of a dispute over LR NO.5046/5....
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; judgment and decree reviewed to expunge LR NO.5046/5 from suit properties.
Orders
- The judgment delivered on 31st October 2014 and the decree issued on 9th December 2014 are reviewed by expunging LR NO.5046/5 from the list of suit properties.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
47 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO.70 OF 2009
1. NELSON KAZUNGU CHAI
2. LAWRENCE KAZAZI NZAU
3. WYCLIFFE TEMBO MWANGOMBE
4. SAID HASSAN HEMEED
5. IBRAHIM ABDI
6. FESTUS MWARERE LENGA
7. KENGA KILUMO CHARI
8. LEONNOX MKUTANO NGALA
9. SHADRACK NDHULI
10. PRUDENCE MAPENZI MWANGORI.........PLAINTIFFS
/RESPONDENTS
=VERSUS=
PWANI UNIVERSITY...................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
AND
1. GEOFFREY NYANGAU GITAGA
2. SIMON MRAMBA DAVID
3. FESTUS WANJE MLANDA........... INTERESTED PARTIES/
APPLICANTS
R U L I N G
Introduction:
What is before me is the Application by the Interested Parties dated 27th January, 2015. In the Application, the Applicants are seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) That the Honourable court be pleased to review its judgment delivered on the 31st day of October 2014 and the decree thereof issued on the 9th day of December 2014 by expunging plot no. L.R. NO. 5046/5 from the list of the suit plots in the record of the said judgment and decree.
(b) That there be stay of execution of the said judgment, decree and all the consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of this application.
(c) Costs be in the cause.
The Application is premised on the grounds that the Interested Parties reside in Kilifi on plot number 5046/5; that they learnt through the media that they are supposed to be evicted from the said property following the Judgment of this court and that neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants had a claim for plot number 5046/5.
The Defendant did not oppose the Application. The Plaintiffs filed Grounds of Opposition in which they averred that the court has no jurisdiction to grant the prayers pleaded and that the subject matter was part of the broad issues before the court and can only be ventilated in the Court of Appeal.
The Applicants' counsel submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Counsel submitted that the Interested Parties did not participate in the proceedings that led to the Judgment of 31st October 2014 and that they are the ones in occupation of plot number 5046/5.
Counsel submitted that from the pleadings on record, the Plaintiffs claim was in respect of LR No. 5046/1 and 5024/1. Counsel submitted that non of the parties in the suit are claiming LR No.5046/5.
In response, the Plaintiffs' counsel submitted that this court is functus officio after it delivered its Judgment and that the issues being canvassed by the Interested Parties can only be canvassed on appeal.
The Plaintiffs moved this court by way of a Plaint. In the Plaint, the Plaintiffs sought for a declaration that part of parcels of land known as L.R. No.5046/1 and 5024/1 occupied are theirs. The Plaintiffs also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with their possession of L.R. No.5046/1 and 5024/1.
In the Defence and Counter-claim, the Defendant averred that consequent to the compulsory acquisition of parcel of land known as L.R. NO.5046/1, 5046/2 and 5024/1 by the Government, Kilifi Institute of Agriculture, the predecessor of the Defendant, was established and occupied the said parcel of land.
In the counter-claim, the Defendant sought for the eviction of the Plaintiffs from LR. NO. 5046/1, 5024/1, 5046/2 and 5024/2.
On 31st October 2014, this court delivered its Judgment evicting the Plaintiffs and any other trespassers in occupation of the Defendants land being LR. 5046/1, 5024/1, 5024/2, 5046/2 and 5046/5.
The inclusion of LR NO.5046/5 in the Judgment was an error considering that there was no dispute in respect to the said land.
As I have already stated, the Plaintiffs' claim was only in respect of LR No.5046/1 and 5024/1. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant claimed in their pleadings that they have a legal or beneficial interest in LR 5046/5.
The inclusion of LR NO. 5046/5 in the Judgment and Decree is therefore a mistake and an error apparent on the face of the record. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant are claiming the said parcel of land. Indeed, the Defendant in whose favour the Judgment was delivered, is not opposing the Application.
For those reasons, I allow the Interested Parties' Application dated 27th January 2015 as follows:
(a) The Judgment delivered by this court on 31st day of October 2014 and the decree thereof issued on the 9th day of December 2014 be and is hereby reviewed by expunging LR. NO.5046/5 from the list of the suit properties stated in the Judgment and the Decree.
(b) Each party to pay his/its own costs.
Dated and delivered in Malindi this 12th day of June, 2015.
O. A. Angote
Judge