[2013] KEELC 66 (KLR)

[2013] KEELC 66 (KLR)

The court held that it could not grant the vesting and eviction orders sought by the applicant because there was a pending appeal before the Provincial Land Dispute Appeals Committee regarding the same subject matter. Additionally, the property had since been registered in the name of the 2nd respondent, who was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEELC 66 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Kamau Mwaura; Respondent: Christine William Mwasaru; Respondent: William Mwasaru Mgendi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 3 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Vesting and Eviction Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Vesting Orders, Eviction Orders, Land Registration, Tribunal Awards, Pending Appeal
Source Language
en
Land and Property Vesting Orders Eviction Orders Land Registration Tribunal Awards Pending Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kamau Mwaura

Applicant

Christine William Mwasaru

Respondent

William Mwasaru Mgendi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Vesting and Eviction Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court can issue vesting and eviction orders in favour of the applicant in light of a pending appeal against the tribunal award.
  2. 2 Whether the registration of the 2nd respondent as owner of the suit property affects the execution of the tribunal's judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the application is properly before the court or should be brought by way of a substantive suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it could not grant the vesting and eviction orders sought by the applicant because there was a pending appeal before the Provincial Land Dispute Appeals Committee regarding the same subject matter. Additionally, the property had since been registered in the name of the 2nd respondent, who was not a party to the original tribunal proceedings. The court found that the legality of the title and the applicant's entitlement to the orders could not be determined through the present application but required either the transfer of the pending appeal to the Environment and Land Court or the institution of a substantive suit. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2013 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.