[2009] KEHC 2604 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide the decision he sought to have implemented, as it was not annexed to the application or traceable in the court record. The applicant also lacked locus standi, as the land in question had been transferred to the interested party by the applicant’s father, and any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2604 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Director of Land Adjudication; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer Meru North; Interested Party: Pharis Nyaga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 167 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Land Adjudication, Locus Standi
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Director of Land Adjudication
Respondent
Land Adjudication Officer Meru North
Respondent
Pharis Nyaga
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of mandamus to compel the respondents to implement the decision in objection No. 77 of 1997.
- 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek registration of the disputed land parcel in his name or on behalf of his deceased father’s family.
- 3 Whether the application is competent in the absence of the decision sought to be implemented.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide the decision he sought to have implemented, as it was not annexed to the application or traceable in the court record. The applicant also lacked locus standi, as the land in question had been transferred to the interested party by the applicant’s father, and any objection should have been raised by the father himself. The land adjudication committee had already determined the ownership in favour of the interested party. In the absence of a clear decision to enforce and a demonstrated legal right, the application for mandamus was incompetent and could not be granted.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2005 is dismissed as incompetent.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent and the interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
Miscellaneous Civil Application 167 of 2005
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MANDAMUS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF E.R. OBJECTION NO. 77 OF 1997 MADE ON AMWATHI ADJUDICATION SECTION
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC …………………………………............………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION …..........…….. RESPONDENT
LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICERMERU NORTH ….. RESPONDENT
PHARIS NYAGA ………………………….............. INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
The ex parte applicant by the Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2005 seeks the following orders:-
1. That the Honourable court be pleased to issue orders of Mandamus to compel the respondents to implement the 2nd respondent decision in objection No. 77 of 97 made on 8. 4.1998 by:-
(a)Registering 0. 50 acres of No. 2919 AMWANTHI ADJDUCATION SECTION in applicant’s names.
(b)The balance of same parcel be registered in applicant’s name on behalf of his father M’AMIRU deceased’s family.
2. That costs be provided for.
The ex parte applicant on 16th November 2005 obtained leave to file that Notice of Motion. In the application for leave, the ex parte applicant stated in his verifying affidavit that he was annexing the decision he sought its implementation. However in perusing the court records, I was unable to trace that decision. Indeed the matter was not clear to me what the ex parte applicant was seeking until I considered the interested party’s replying affidavit.
The interested party deponed that he is the owner of parcel No. AMWATHI/MAUA/2919. He purchased this land from the ex parteapplicant’s father some 30 years ago. The transfer was officially carried out through the land adjudication committee. The ex parte applicant therefore, according to the respondent, had no locus standi since the objection to that registration should have been filed by his father.
Further that the objection of the ex parte applicant was considered by the land adjudication committee and the outcome of it was that the parcel of land was to be demarcated in the interested party’s name. In view of the foregoing, it is not clear what decision the ex parte application seeks implementation of his Notice of Motion.
For that reason, the Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2005 is found to be incompetent by this court and is dismissed with costs being awarded to the respondent and the interested party.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 16th day of July 2009.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE