[2020] KEELC 978 (KLR)
The court found that the implementation of its decree, which required adherence to the Kandungu Adjudication Committee's decision of 20.3.2001, was rendered impossible by the subsequent subdivision of parcel No. 87 into eight portions. Since these subdivisions occurred after the committee's decision and frustrated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 978 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer, Meru South/Maara District; Applicant: Zachary Njeru Mugambi; Applicant: M’Ndereba Magiri; Applicant: Francis Kaburu Johnson; Interested Party: M’Riba Rumukia; Interested Party: Mwenda Kajogi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 21 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Cancellation of Subdivisions
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Costs awarded to the applicant.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Cancellation of Subdivisions, Implementation of Court Decree
- 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
Land Adjudication Officer, Meru South/Maara District
Respondent
Zachary Njeru Mugambi
Applicant
M’Ndereba Magiri
Applicant
Francis Kaburu Johnson
Applicant
M’Riba Rumukia
Interested Party
Mwenda Kajogi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Cancellation of Subdivisions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should order cancellation of all subdivisions of parcel number 87 Lower Kandungu Adjudication Section to enable implementation of its decree.
- 2 Whether the subdivisions were done after the adjudication committee's decision and thus frustrate the implementation of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the implementation of its decree, which required adherence to the Kandungu Adjudication Committee's decision of 20.3.2001, was rendered impossible by the subsequent subdivision of parcel No. 87 into eight portions. Since these subdivisions occurred after the committee's decision and frustrated the execution of the court's order, the court held that it was necessary to cancel the subdivisions to give effect to its earlier decree. The court thus allowed the application to cancel all subdivisions of parcel No. 87 Lower Kandungu Adjudication Section, ensuring the decree could be implemented as intended.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Orders
- All subdivisions of parcel number 87 Lower Kandungu Adjudication Section are cancelled to enable implementation of the court's decree.
- Costs are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. 21 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO. 615 OF 2013
REPUBLIC..................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER
MERU SOUTH/MAARA DISTRICT.......................RESPONDENT
M’RIBA RUMUKIA...............................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
MWENDA KAJOGI.............................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
EX-PARTE:
ZACHARY NJERU MUGAMBI........................1ST APPLICANT
M’NDEREBA MAGIRI.....................................2ND APPLICANT
FRANCIS KABURU JOHNSON....................3RD APPLICANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 26th February, 2020 and seeks orders:
1. The honourable court be pleased to order for the cancellation of all the sub-divisions of P/NO.87 Lower Kandungu Adjudication Section to enable implementation of the decree of this court.
2. The honourable court be pleased to make any other orders as may meet the ends of Justice.
3. Costs be provided for.
2. The application has the following grounds:
A.The order of this court requiring the implementation of the decision of Kandungu Adjudication Committee made on 20. 3.2001 cannot be implemented unless the original parcel No. 87 which has since been subdivided into 8 portions, the said subdivision is cancelled.
B. The said subdivisions were done after the decision of Adjudication Committee made on 20. 3.2001 had already been made.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of FRANCIS KABURU, the applicant, sworn on 26th February, 2020.
4. When the application was heard, Mr. Kimathi Kiara, the applicant’s advocate told the court that the application was meant to facilitate implementation of this court’s decree.
5. The 2nd Interested Party, Mwenda Kanjogi, told the court that he agreed with the court’s decision and felt that it was inspired by the Holy spirit.
6. In the circumstances, the following orders are issued:
a) Prayer 1 in the application is allowed.
b) Costs are awarded to the applicant.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 13th day of October, 2020 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Kimathi Kiara for the Ex-parte applicants
Mwenda Kanjogi – 2nd Interested Party
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE