[2018] KEELC 4459 (KLR)
The court found that the subdivisions of LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei/50 and the issuance of new titles (Kiganjo/Gatei 2139-2141) occurred on 23rd December 2004, while the stay orders were only obtained on 4th March 2016, twelve years later. As such, the stay orders could not retrospectively affect the validity of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4459 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Githiu Komu; Respondent: Peter Chege Ndua
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 26 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed; file transferred to Thika ELC Court
- Legal Topics
- Land Title Cancellation, Subdivision of Land, Appeals Procedure
- 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
Peter Githiu Komu
Appellant
Peter Chege Ndua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the District Land Registrar Gatundu should be ordered to cancel title Nos. Kiganjo/Gatei 2139-2141 arising from LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei/50.
- 2 Whether the application for cancellation of title is properly before the court given the procedural history and incomplete record of appeal.
- 3 Whether the stay orders obtained after the subdivisions can affect titles already issued.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the subdivisions of LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei/50 and the issuance of new titles (Kiganjo/Gatei 2139-2141) occurred on 23rd December 2004, while the stay orders were only obtained on 4th March 2016, twelve years later. As such, the stay orders could not retrospectively affect the validity of the subdivisions or the resulting titles. Furthermore, the applicant's record of appeal was incomplete, lacking essential pages and documents, making it procedurally improper to entertain the application for cancellation of title at this stage. The court also noted confusion regarding the case numbers and judgments being appealed, further undermining the application. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed; file transferred to Thika ELC Court
Orders
- The applicant's application dated 15th March, 2017 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The file is to be transferred to Thika ELC Court for hearing and disposal of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC APPEAL NO.26 OF 2014
PETER GITHIU KOMU…....……APPELLANT
=VERSUS=
PETER CHEGE NDUA……...RESPOPNDENT
RULING
1. This is a Ruling in respect of an application dated 15th March, 2017 which seeks orders directed at the District Land Registrar Gatundu to cancel title Nos. Kiganjo/Gatei 2139-2141 which arose out of LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei /50.
2. The appellant/applicant and the respondent are cousins. The respondent is a legal representative of the estate of his late father Suleiman Ndua Kiarie (Deceased). The deceased had filed a suit (Thika SPMCC No. 2447 of 1994) against the applicant herein and another. Despite the applicant and his co-defendant being given time to participate in the hearing, they did not forcing the trial Magistrate to proceed to hear the case ex-parte.
3. It would appear that there was another case at Gatundu Law Courts whose details are not known but can be discerned from the undated judgement of the trial Magistrate in the Thika case. From that judgement it is clear that the applicant and his co-defendant were to get 4 acres from Kiganjo /Gatei/46 but they insisted that they get the same from LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei/50.
4. The applicant and his co-defendant somehow managed to get three acres out of LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei/50. This is what provoked the deceased to file the Thika case in which he obtained orders directed at the applicant and his co-defendant to re-convey back the land to the deceased. The deceased and or his estate executed the decree and re-conveyed back the land to the deceased.
5. The applicant later applied for leave to file an appeal against the judgement from the Thika Court. Leave was granted on 31st July 2014 . The applicant then prepared a record of appeal which is incomplete and filed an application for stay of execution and injunction. In a ruling delivered on 4th March 2016, the applicant was granted stay of execution and injunction orders. When the applicant took the order to the Gatundu District Land Registrar for registration against the title, the same could not be registered as LR No.Kiganjo/Gatei/50 had already been closed and new subdivisions were in place. This is what provoked the filing of the current application.
6. From the searches annexed to a letter dated 16th January 2017 from the District Land Registrar Thika, LR No.Kiganjo/Gatei/50 was closed on subdivisions on 23rd December 2004. The respondent contends that the subdivisions were carried out before stay orders were obtained and that no orders of cancellation can be given based on an application.
7. I have carefully considered the applicant’s application as well as the opposition to the same by the respondent. The subdivisions on LR No. Kiganjo/Gatei/50 were done on 23rd December 2004. Stay orders were obtained on 4th March 2016, twelve years later. There is a lot of confusion in this matter. The applicant seems to suggest that there are two different cases that is Thika SRMCC No.247 of 1994 and Thika SRMCC NO. 2447 of 1994. The applicant has however annexed a judgement from Thika SRMCC No.2447 of 1994. If this is the judgement he is appealing against and if it is the one which was upheld on appeal then I do not understand why he is making a second appeal to this court. However if the upheld judgement was arising from Thika SRMCC 247 of 1994 then, the applicant has annexed a wrong judgement. However be that as it may, it is clear that the application for cancellation of title cannot be allowed at the moment. The applicant should prepare a complete record of appeal which includes proceedings and the entire judgement of the High Court. This is because I notice from the record of appeal that it does not contain pages 3-6. I dismiss the applicant’s application with no order as to costs. As this property falls within Thika ELC Court and more particularly where the lower Court case was heard, I direct that this file be transferred to Thika ELC Court for hearing and disposal of the appeal.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi on this 6thday of February, 2018.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of;-
Appellant in person
Court Assistant : Kajuju
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE