[2021] KEELC 3623 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case warranting the grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the respondents' decision regarding land parcel No. 1233. The applicant demonstrated that the respondents had failed to provide necessary documents, and there were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 3623 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rosco Kibara Mangaara; Respondent: The Deputy County Commissioner Tharaka South Subcounty; Respondent: The Director Land Adjudication and Settlement; Respondent: Tharaka South Subcounty Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: Paul Kirimi Kiria
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave and Stay
- Outcome
- application allowed at ex-parte stage; leave granted; stay of implementation ordered
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Land Adjudication, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Rosco Kibara Mangaara
Applicant
The Deputy County Commissioner Tharaka South Subcounty
Respondent
The Director Land Adjudication and Settlement
Respondent
Tharaka South Subcounty Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Paul Kirimi Kiria
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave and Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the respondents' decision regarding land parcel No. 1233.
- 2 Whether the leave granted should operate as a stay of implementation of the impugned decision.
- 3 Whether the respondents acted with bias and in excess of authority in the adjudication process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case warranting the grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the respondents' decision regarding land parcel No. 1233. The applicant demonstrated that the respondents had failed to provide necessary documents, and there were credible allegations of bias and excess of authority in the adjudication process. The court further held that, given the threat of eviction and the refusal by the respondents to supply the relevant proceedings, it was just and equitable to grant a stay of implementation of the impugned decision pending the determination of the substantive motion. Accordingly, the court granted...
Court Disposition
application allowed at ex-parte stage; leave granted; stay of implementation ordered
Orders
- Prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Chamber Summons dated 19th April 2021 are granted.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
59 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAT AT CHUKA
ELC MISC. JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. E005 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OFTHE LAW REFORM ACT, CAP.26, THE LAND ADJUDICATION ACT, CAP. 284, THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT NO.4 OF 2015 LAWS OF KENYA AND ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS AND DECISION MADE ON 18. 03. 2021 IN APPEAL NO. 93/2018 OVER PARCEL OF LAND NO. 1233 SITUATE IN KAMANYAKI/KAMARANDI ADJUDICATION SECTION WITHIN THARAKA SOUTH SUBCOUNTY
BETWEEN
ROSCO KIBARA MANGAARA................................................................EX-PARTE APPLICANT
VS.
THE DEPUTY COUNTY COMMISSIONER THARAKA
SOUTH SUBCOUNTY.........................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR LAND ADJUDICATION AND
SETTLEMENT RESPONDENT........................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
THARAKA SOUTH SUBCOUNTY LAND ADJUDICATION
AND SETTLEMENT OFFICER........................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL........................................................................................4TH RESPONENT
AND
PAUL KIRIMI KIRIA...................................................................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. This application was brought to court by way of Chamber Summons dated 19th April, 2021 which reads as follows:
EX-PARTE CHAMBER SUMMONS
(Pursuant to Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26, The Fair Administrative Actions Act No.4 of 2015, and Order 53 Rule 1 (1), (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules
LET ALL PARTIES concerned attend the Honourable judge in chambers on the ………………. day of ……………….. 2021 at nine O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter for hearing of this application for orders that the Honourable court be pleased to :-
1. Certify this application extremely urgent and hear it on priority basis in the first instance.
2. Grant leave to ex-parte applicant to apply for a writ of certiorari to call into the High Courtand quash the proceedings, findings and decision made by the 1stRespondent on 18. 03. 2021 in objection Appeal No. 93 of 2018 over land parcel No. 1233, situate in Kamanyaki/Kamarandi Adjudication Section.
3. That the leave so granted, do operate as stay of implementation on the ground, of the decision made on 18. 03. 2021 in objection Appeal No. 93 of 2018 over land parcel No. 1233, situate in
Kamanyaki/Kamarandi Adjudication Section, pending filing, hearing and determination of the substantive notice of motion.
4. That the honourable court do hereby order the 1st and the 2nd respondents to supply the Ex-parte Applicant with the proceedings and the decision of the Appeal against the decision in Objetion No.114 of 2008 in relation to P/No.1233 Kamanyaki/Kamarandi Adjudication Section forthwith
6. Order that costs herein abide the outcome of the substantive notice of motion application.
WHICH APPLICATION is premised on the statutory statement of facts and verifying affidavit sworn by ROSCO KIBARA MANGAARA plus the exhibit thereto annexed, hereinbefore filed, and the unfolding laconic grounds :-
1) The Ex-parte Applicant filed an objection case No. 114/2008 against the Interested Party claiming land Parcel NO. 1233 Kamanyaki/Kamarandi Adjudication Section which apparently had been unlawfully registered in the name of interested party.
1) The said objection was heard and allowed by the 3rd Respondent while sitting with the appointed committee members and ordered that the land belongs to the Ex-parte Applicant.
2) The interested party subsequently filed an appeal with the minister in accordance with Section29 of the land Adjudication Act, CAP 284 Laws of Kenya.
3) The 1St Respondent sitting on behalf of the Minister overturned the decision on 18. 03. 2021 and purported to give the interested party the Ex-parte Applicant’s land.
4) The 1st Respondent further exhibited extreme bias in the conduct of his proceedings and
proceeded to rely on irrelevant matters to disregard the testimony of the Ex-parte Applicant’s witness his witnesses.
5) The 1st Respondent disregarded the testimony of the Ex-parte Applicant and his witness and instead relied on non-existing evidence of the interested party. This was outright bias.
6) The 1st and 2nd respondents have completely refused to supply the ex-parte applicant with the proceedings, decision and the adjudication register to enable pursue these proceedings despite various demands. They keep tossing the applicant and his advocate from one place to another.
7) That all this is a larger scheme to deprive the ex-Parte applicant his land
8) The 1st Respondent acted in excess of his authority by purporting to give the Interested Party land that belong to the Ex-parte Applicant without any basis.
9) The 1st Respondent made the verdict in Appeal to the Minister land case No.93 of 2018 capriciously and with extreme bias.
10) The decision of the 1st Respondent is against the Rule of law.
DATED AT MERU THIS ……… 19TH ……… DAY OF …….. APRIL,…. 2021
…………………………………………..
FOR. THANGICIA M. DAVID & CO.
ADVOCATES FOR EX-PARTE APPLICANT
2. The application was supported by a Statutory statement of Facts dated 19th April, 2021.
3. At the ex-parte stage, Mr. Thangicia, the applicant’s advocate, told the court that the 1st and 2nd respondents had refused to avail to them the proceedings which spawned the impugned decision. He also told the court that although the applicant had his home on the suit land, the Interested Party was threatening to evict him from the land and hence there was need for the leave granted in this matter to operate as a stay of execution of the impugned decision.
4. Upon consideration of the apposite issue, I find that this application is meritorious.
5. In the circumstances, I issue the following orders:
a) Prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are granted.
b) Costs shall be in the cause.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT CHUKA THIS 21. 4.2021 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Thangicia for the applicant
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.