[2010] KEHC 86 (KLR)
The court held that the correct operative order is the one drawn by the applicant, as it accurately reflects the pleadings, prayers, and the context of the court's ruling. The court emphasized that an order is not objectionable for being detailed, provided it does not go beyond the scope of the pleadings and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 86 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Registrar of Titles-Nairobi Registry; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Director of Surveys; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi; Respondent: White Horse Investment Limited; Respondent: Aster Holdings Limited; Applicant: Caroget Investment Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 30 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Post Ruling; Interpretation of Draft Orders
- Outcome
- Order as drawn by the applicant (excluding Order No.3) adopted; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Orders, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Pleadings and Prayers, Drafting of Orders
- 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
Registrar of Titles-Nairobi Registry
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Director of Surveys
Respondent
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
White Horse Investment Limited
Respondent
Aster Holdings Limited
Respondent
Caroget Investment Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Post Ruling; Interpretation of Draft Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the draft order drawn by the applicant or the 2nd interested party correctly reflects the court's ruling and the pleadings.
- 2 Whether the court can clarify the operative order without exceeding its jurisdiction post-ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the correct operative order is the one drawn by the applicant, as it accurately reflects the pleadings, prayers, and the context of the court's ruling. The court emphasized that an order is not objectionable for being detailed, provided it does not go beyond the scope of the pleadings and prayers. The court further clarified that, while it is functus officio and cannot revisit the merits of its decision, it retains the power to ensure that the formal order issued corresponds to the ruling and the reliefs sought. The court found that the draft order by the 2nd interested party omitted essential details necessary for clarity and enforcement, whereas the applicant's draft...
Court Disposition
Order as drawn by the applicant (excluding Order No.3) adopted; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The order as drawn by the applicant, excluding Order No.3, is adopted as the operative order.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2009
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC..............................................................................................................APPLICANT
AND
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES-NAIROBI REGISTRY.............................1ST RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS..............................................................3RD RESPONDENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI.........................................................4TH RESPONDENT
WHITE HORSE INVESTMENT LIMITED...................................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
ASTER HOLDINGS LIMITED....................................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
EX-PARTE: CAROGET INVESTMENT LIMITED
RULING
The issue that has been placed before me by both learned counsel has caused me some concern. This court delivered its ruling on 29th July, 2010 in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 24th March, 2009.
The learned counsel for the applicant and that of 2nd interested party have drawn two different draft orders in reference to the said ruling. It is the difference in the draft orders that have been refereed to me for interpretation. My concern is that, this court having delivered its ruling may, in the course of interpreting the orders presented before it, delve into matters that may result in rewriting the said ruling yet it is fanctus officio. I believe however, I can steer clear of the merits or reasons for granting the orders that I did in the said application.
A litigant’s case is premised on the pleadings placed before the court and the prayers thereunder. The Notice of Motion dated 24th March, 2009 set out in clear, concise and unambiguous language the orders sought by the applicant. After hearing the arguments of the parties herein, the court said at page 16 of the ruling as follows;
“Considering all the material that has been placed before me, I am persuaded that the Notice of Motion brought by the applicant herein on 24th March, 2009 must succeed. Having said so, an order of certiorari shall issue forthwith recalling the decision of the 1st respondent dated 20th February, 2009 to this court and thereby quashing it forthwith. The order of prohibition shall issue following such a recall and vacation thereof. And having said so, the order of mandamus would follow and that the reinstatement follows the orders above.”
The draft by the 2nd interested party herein more or less captures the wording of my ruling. However, it leaves out the details which are contained in the pleadings and in particular the prayers set out in the Notice of Motion dated 24th March, 2009.
If for example one were to read the orders set out by the 2nd interested party independent of the preamble, would one be able to tell which subject matter is involved or what was being prohibited or for what purpose mandamus order was being issued? The obvious answer is no. On the other hand, if one were to read the order as drawn by the applicant, independent of preamble, it is clear the details therein not only capture the pleadings and the prayers set out in Notice of Motion, but also gives the details with particular reference to the subject matter and the impact of the orders sought.
An order is not offensive because it is detailed provided it does not go out of the scope of the pleadings and the prayers sought. Having related the two orders as drawn by the applicant and the 2nd interested party respectively, I am inclined to find that the order as drawn by the applicant captures the pleadings and prayers of Notice of Motion and the tenure and context of my ruling aforesaid. It is conceded however that, Order No.3 as drawn by the applicant is misplaced and should be vacated. With respect, I agree, and therefore I find that the order as drawn by the applicant is the correct order that flows from the pleadings, prayers and my said ruling.
There is no order as to costs. Orders accordingly.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of November, 2010.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE