[2009] KEHC 127 (KLR)
The court found that the Tigania Magistrate Court's decree and orders in SRMCC No. 177 of 2007 were issued in clear disregard of an existing and subsisting decree from the Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court in PMCC No. 37 of 2004. The earlier decree had declared the suit land to be family land held in trust for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 127 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate, Tigania Law Courts; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: Isaac Mbiti John M’Thangatha; Interested Party: M’Itabara M’Imyunya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 78 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Certiorari, Abuse of Court Process, Trusts in Land, Injunctions, Conflicting Decrees
- 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
Senior Resident Magistrate, Tigania Law Courts
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Isaac Mbiti John M’Thangatha
Interested Party
M’Itabara M’Imyunya
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decree and orders issued by the Tigania Magistrate Court in SRMCC No. 177 of 2007 were illegal and constituted an abuse of court process.
- 2 Whether the Tigania court orders improperly nullified or defeated the earlier decree of the Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court in PMCC No. 37 of 2004.
- 3 Whether an order of certiorari should issue to quash the Tigania court's decree and consequential orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Tigania Magistrate Court's decree and orders in SRMCC No. 177 of 2007 were issued in clear disregard of an existing and subsisting decree from the Maua Principal Magistrate’s Court in PMCC No. 37 of 2004. The earlier decree had declared the suit land to be family land held in trust for the applicant and her children and had permanently injuncted the second interested party from disposing of the land. The Tigania court's orders, obtained through an admission by the second interested party, effectively sought to transfer the same land to the first interested party, thereby defeating the trust and injunction previously established. The court held that this amounted...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An order of certiorari is issued to bring into this court the decree dated 3rd April 2008 and the order dated 3rd June 2008 and all consequential orders made in Tigania SRMCC No. 177 of 2007, and the same are quashed.
- The costs of this application dated 23.10.2008 and the application dated 3.10.08 for leave shall be paid by the two interested parties to the ex parte applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION TO APPLY FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDER OF CERTIORARI
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: TIGANIA SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 177 OF 2007
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: MAUA PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 37 OF 2004
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: LAND PARCEL NO. 183 SITUATED IN AKIRANG’ONDU ADJUDICATION SECTION
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC …………………………………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, TIGANIA
LAW COURTS ………………………………… 1ST RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………. 2ND RESPONDENT
AND
ISAAC MBITI JOHN M’THANGATHA..1ST INTERESTED PARTY
M’ITABARA M’IMYUNYA ……………. 2ND INTERESTED PARTY
JUDGMENT
The application before court is by way of notice of motion brought under sections 8 and 9 of the Law of Reform Act and Order LIII Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The exparte applicant seeks an order of certiorarito issue to quash the decree of Tigania Magistrate Court No. 177 of 2007. The interested parties and the respondents in this matter did not file papers in opposition to the application. The facts relied upon by the ex parte applicant are that she obtained a decree in Maua PMCC No. 37 of 2004 whereby the second interested party who is her husband was restrained from disposing land parcel No. 183 situated in Akirang’ondu Adjudication Section. The terms of the decree in PMCC Maua No. 37 of 2004were as follows:-
(a)The defendant holds land parcel No. 183 Akirang'odu Adjudication section in trust for the plaintiff and the children.
(b)That an order of permanent injunction do and is hereby issued restraining the defendant from disposing land parcel no. 182 AKIRANG’ONDU ADJ. SECTION or dealing with the said land in any manner to prejudice the interest of the plaintiff
(c)Costs and interest in this suit to go to the plaintiff.
Thereafter, on 3rd April 2008 vide Tigania SRMCC No. 177 of 2007 the first respondent issued a decree which was contrary to the one quoted above. In that case, the first interested party is the plaintiff and the second interested party is the defendant. It is not clear what prayers were sought by the first interested party in that action but it is possible to deduce the same from the decree that came from that court and a subsequent order. The decree in Tigania SRMCC No. 177 of 2007 provided as follows:-
(a)Judgment be and is hereby entered for the plaintiff against the defendant on admission.
(b)The defendant be and is hereby ordered to execute transfer of land parcel No. AKIRANG’ONDU ADJUDICATION Section to the plaintiff and in default the Executive Officer Tigania Law Courts to execute the said transfer.
The same court in the same case issued the following order on 30th June 2008:-
(1)Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant admission.
(2)The defendant is hereby ordered to execute transfer of Land Parcel No. AKIRANG’ONDU ADJ. SECTION to the plaintiff and in default thereof, Executive Officer Tigania Law Courts do execute the said transfer.
As it is clear from the quoted decrees above, the orders issued by Tigania Court in case No. 177 of 2007 nullified the order that had previously been issued in favour of the ex parte applicant in Maua Case No. 37 of 2004. The ex parte applicant termed the orders of Tigania as illegal and enforceable. In my view, those orders were a clear abuse of the court process. In the case in Maua, the second interested party was the defendant. He was therefore very aware that the court had declared the parcel No. 183 AKIRANG’ONDU ADJ. SECTION to be family land and to be held in trust for the ex parte applicant and the children. By the order of that court, the second interested party was permanently injuncted from disposing that land. It is clear that in participating in the Tigania case, the second interested party was probably of the view that he had formulated an ingenious method of defeating the order issued by the Maua magistrate court. As it can be seen from the extracted decree of the Tigania case, the second interested party admitted the claim made by the first interested party. The effect of that was to have the suit property transferred to the first interested party in a sense defeating the decree of Maua court. This court cannot countenance such an act by the interested parties. The ex parte applicant application to quash the decree and order of Tigania magistrate court is merited. The judgment of this court is as follows:-
(1)This court does hereby issue an order of certiorari to bring into this court the decree dated 3rd April 2008 and the order dated 3rd June 2008 and all consequential made in Tigania SRMCC No. 177 of 2007 and order is issued that the same be quashed.
(2)The costs of this application dated 23. 10. 2008 and the application dated 3. 10. 08 for leave shall be paid by the two interested parties to the ex parte applicant.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 25th day of July 2009.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE