[2017] KEELC 1178 (KLR)
The court found that the application for a surveyor to ascertain the acreage and identify parties on the ground lacked merit because the dispute was not about boundaries, nor was there any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation in the pleadings. The court emphasized that the Land Registration Act protects the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1178 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rebecca Jepchirchir; Defendant: Stephen Tanui; Defendant: Francis Malomba; Defendant: Samwel Chepkulei; Defendant: Francis Osuna; Defendant: Pastor Sirima; Defendant: Stephen Mutiso
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 39 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Judges
- MAO Odeny
- Legal Topics
- Indefeasibility of Title, Land Registration, Survey Disputes, Counterclaim 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
Rebecca Jepchirchir
Plaintiff
Stephen Tanui
Defendant
Francis Malomba
Defendant
Samwel Chepkulei
Defendant
Francis Osuna
Defendant
Pastor Sirima
Defendant
Stephen Mutiso
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should order a surveyor to establish the actual acreage of the suit land and identify parties on the ground.
- 2 Whether the application raises a boundary dispute or issues of fraud or misrepresentation warranting a survey.
- 3 Whether the application is res judicata given a similar oral application was previously determined.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for a surveyor to ascertain the acreage and identify parties on the ground lacked merit because the dispute was not about boundaries, nor was there any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation in the pleadings. The court emphasized that the Land Registration Act protects the indefeasibility of title unless fraud or misrepresentation is proven. Furthermore, the court noted that a similar application had already been made and determined during the hearing, and there was no justification to revisit the issue. The defendant still had the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses during the defence hearing. Accordingly, the application was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The application dated 3rd April, 2017 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT ELDORET
ELC NO. 39 OF 2013
REBECCA JEPCHIRCHIR::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STEPHEN TANUI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1ST DEFENDANT
FRANCIS MALOMBA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::2ND DEFENDANT
SAMWEL CHEPKULEI:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::3RD DEFENDANT
FRANCIS OSUNA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::4TH DEFENDANT
PASTOR SIRIMA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::5TH DEFENDANT
STEPHEN MUTISO:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::6TH DEFENDANT
RULING
INTRODUCTION
This ruling is in respect of an application brought by way of Notice of Motion dated 3rd April, 2017 by the defendant/applicants who sought for the following orders:
1. That this application be certified urgent and its service be dispensed with in the first instance.
2. That this Honorable court do order the UASIN GISHU County Surveyor to establish actual acrearage of the suit land ELDORET MUNICIPALIY BLOCK 30(KAPYEMIT)/33 an file the report in court.
3. That further to prayer No. 2 above the said Uasin Gishu County Surveyor to identify the parties on the ground in respect of the suit land.
4. That costs of this application be provided for.
This matter is a part heard where the plaintiff had testified on 29th March 2017 before Justice Matheka. It was fixed for defence hearing on 16th May 2017 when the defence failed to attend and the court ordered that the defence close their case and a judgement date given for 24th May 2017. Before the judgement could be written the defendant/applicant filed an application dated 16th May 2017 for setting aside the orders closing the defence case in the absence of the lawyer. A ruling was delivered in respect of the said application on 23rd May 2017 allowing the application to reopen the case for defence hearing.
On 29th March 2017 when this matter was slated for hearing, Counsel for the defence made an oral application to have a surveyor visit the suit land and come up with a report on the acreage but the same was opposed by Counsel for the plaintiff who stated that this is not a boundary dispute to warrant such survey. The court overruled the Counsel for the defendant and ordered that the matter do proceed for hearing which hearing took place.
I notice that it is the same application which is currently being pursued by counsel for the defendant. From the pleadings, there is no claim that the title was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation by the plaintiff. The defence and counterclaim does not mention anything about fraud or misrepresentation.
I am guided by the provisions of section 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act which provides for indefeasibility of title. I can only interfere when it is proven that the same was obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation. This is not a boundary dispute where a surveyor can be ordered to ascertain where the boundary lies. This is a part heard matter where the defendant has not yet testified, he will still have an opportunity to lead evidence and call the relevant witnesses to prove his counter claim.
Apart from that this issue as mentioned above had been dealt with when the matter came up for hearing. I will not therefore rule again on it.
The upshot is that the application lacks merit and therefore is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret on this 4th day of October, 2017.
M.A ODENY
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of:
Mr. Miyenda holding brief for Mr. Chepkwony for Plaintiff/Respondent
Miss Lelei for Defendant/Respondents
Koech- Court Assistant