[2017] KEELC 681 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard practice of determining petitions by written submissions. The issues raised, including ownership, occupation, and alleged fraud, did not meet the threshold for oral evidence or a site visit....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 681 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nkoroi Njeru; Respondent: District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Meru South District; Respondent: Director of Land Adjudication; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Bauni M'Nkambi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 23 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Hearing Procedure
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership Dispute, Rectification of Title, Fraudulent Title Claims, Court Procedure, Oral Evidence Vs Written Submissions
- 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
Nkoroi Njeru
Applicant
District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Meru South District
Respondent
Director of Land Adjudication
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Bauni M'Nkambi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Hearing Procedure
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review its earlier order for written submissions and allow oral evidence and witness testimony.
- 2 Whether the court should visit the locus in quo to determine the nature of occupation and developments on the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard practice of determining petitions by written submissions. The issues raised, including ownership, occupation, and alleged fraud, did not meet the threshold for oral evidence or a site visit. The court emphasized that the mere complexity or seriousness of the dispute does not automatically entitle parties to oral hearings or locus visits. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed, and the matter was to proceed by way of written submissions, with parties allowed to highlight their submissions in court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review to allow oral evidence and a site visit is dismissed.
- Parties are granted 10 minutes each to highlight their written submissions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 23 OF 2017
NKOROI NJERU...................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT
OFFICER MERU SOUTH DISTRICT.........1ST RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION..2ND RESPONDENT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..................3RD RESPONDENT
BAUNI M’NKAMBI....................................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application is dated 15. 11. 2017 and seeks orders:-
a) That the honourable court be pleased to review its orders of prosecuting this matter by the way of written submissions and order for this matter to be heard by the way of giving oral evidence and calling witnesses.
b) That consequent to prayer (a) above the honourable court be pleased to visit the locus quo and determine the nature of occupation of each party on the ground of the subject suit before adjudicating on the ownership of the same.
c) That costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application has the following grounds:-
1. That the dispute herein is about ownership of the disputed parcels and that is why the petitioner is praying for rectification of title.
2. That ownership connotes possession or occupation which is disputed.
3. That this is a large chunk of land which has attracted a lot of tension which cannot be determined by way of submissions.
4. That also the petitioner will be praying for compensation of damages or court may award the same Sou (sic) Motu under article 159 (2) (D) of the constitution thence need for the court to witnesses (sic) by its own eyes the nature of the damages herein.
5. That it is the petitioner who was the original owner of the disputed property thus the court MUST visit the LOCUS QUO to know the nature of the permanent developments thereon and proof of the ownership of the trees on site which are too old thence help to determine ownership.
6. That the petitioner is alleging that the title herein was fraudulently gotten thus by visiting the LOCUS QUO the court will be having an upper land (sic) on the origin of this parcel.
7. That the visit will grant each side a fair hearing a front (sic).
3. The application was heard on 6. 12. 2017. Mr. Ogoti for the petitioner told the court that he was relying on the grounds on the face of the application and on the petitioner’s supporting affidavit sworn on 15. 11. 2017.
4. Mr. Mutegi, holding brief for Mark Muriithi for the 4th respondent told the court that Mr. Muriithi opposed the application through Grounds of Opposition dated 5. 12. 2017.
5. I have considered the issues raised by the parties in their pleadings. Ideally, except in exceptional circumstances, petitions are canvassed through written submissions. I do not find that there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the hearing of this petition orally.
6. In the circumstances, this application is dismissed.
7. Parties will be given 10 minutes each to highlight their submissions.
8. Highlighting of submissions will take place on 5. 2.2018.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 6th day of December, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Ogoti for the petitioner
Mutani for the petitioner
Mutegi h/b Muriithi for 4 respondent
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE