[2017] KEELC 501 (KLR)
The court found that the 3rd Respondent, although the registered proprietor of the land, initiated proceedings without joining or notifying persons in occupation of the land, including the exparte Applicant. The orders obtained, if executed, would have adversely affected these persons by displacing them without...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 501 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Judith Akinyi Omondi; Respondent: Senior Resident Magistrate, Winam Law Court; Respondent: In-Charge Administration Police (Winam Division); Respondent: Maurice Adawo Onduru
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 9 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs to the 3rd Respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Right to Fair Hearing, Procedural Fairness, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Judith Akinyi Omondi
Applicant
Senior Resident Magistrate, Winam Law Court
Respondent
In-Charge Administration Police (Winam Division)
Respondent
Maurice Adawo Onduru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the exparte Applicant has established a case for quashing of the 1st Respondent’s order.
- 2 Whether the exparte Applicant has made a reasonable case for a prohibition order against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 3rd Respondent, although the registered proprietor of the land, initiated proceedings without joining or notifying persons in occupation of the land, including the exparte Applicant. The orders obtained, if executed, would have adversely affected these persons by displacing them without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The 1st Respondent issued the impugned order without ensuring that all potentially affected parties were before the court, thereby denying them their constitutional right to a fair hearing and fair administrative action as guaranteed under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. The failure to observe these procedural safeguards rendered the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs to the 3rd Respondent.
Orders
- Order of certiorari issued to quash the exparte order made by the 1st Respondent on 15th September 2016 in Winam SRM Misc. Civil Application No.32 of 2016.
- Order of prohibition issued barring the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from acting on or implementing the exparte order made and issued by the 1st Respondent on 15th September 2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KISUMU
ELC JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NO.9 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ORDER OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
BETWEEN
REPUBLIC...................................................................................APPLICANT
AND
THE SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, WINAM LAW COURT
THE IN-CHARGE ADMINISTRATION POLICE (WINAM DIVISION)
MAURICE ADAWO ONDURU............................................RESPONDENTS
JUDITH AKINYI OMONDI........................................EXPARTE APPLICANT
JUDGMENT
1. Through the notice of motion dated 12th October 2016, Judith Akinyi Omondi, the Exparte Applicant, seeks for an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash the exparte order issued by the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Winam, the 1st Respondent, on the 15th September 2016 in Winam SRM Misc. Civil Application No.32 of 2016. She also prays for an order of prohibition barring Administration Police In charge Winamand Maurice Adawo Onduru, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively, from acting on or implementing the exparte order made and issued by the 1st Respondent on the 15th September 2016. The exparte Applicant also prays for costs. The application is based on the statutory statement and verifying affidavit filed with it.
2. The application is opposed by the 3rd Respondent through his replying affidavit sworn on the 3rd March 2017.
3. The application came up for hearing on the 20th September 2017 when Mr. Nyasimi and Onyang’o, learned counsel for the Exparte applicant and 3rd Respondent respectively, made their oral submissions.
4. The issues for determinations by the court are as follows;
a) Whether the exparte Applicant has established a case for quashing of the 1st Respondent’s order.
b) Whether the Exparte Applicant has made a reasonable case for prohibition order to issue against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
c) Who pays the costs.
5. The court has carefully considered the grounds on the statutory notice, affidavit evidence, submissions by counsel and concluded as follows;
a) That even though the 3rd Respondent may be the legally registered proprietor of the suit land, the way he initiated Winam S.R.M. Miscellaneous Application No.32 of 2016 did not give or afford any opportunity to those who were on the land, either as trespassers or otherwise, to be heard.
b) That the order issued by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent to provide security for the 3rd Respondent to level the land shows that the 3rd Respondent knew of the existence of a person or persons who are likely to object to the exercise. The 3rd Respondent had therefore the obligation to enjoin such persons in the court process that he had filed so that they could be afforded the opportunity to be heard before any adverse orders could be issued against them.
c) That the failure by the 3rd Respondent to enjoin the people likely to be affected by the order to be issued, like the Exparte Applicant, and obtaining orders that if executed would displace them denied such persons the right to a fair hearing as required under Article 50 of the Constitution 2010.
d) That by the 1st Respondent issuing the order that it did without ensuring that all those who were likely to be affected, like to Exparte Applicant, denied such persons the opportunity to be heard and be accorded fair administrative action as required under Article 47 and 50 of the Constitution 2010 before they could be condemned.
6. That in view of the foregoing the court finds merit in the notice of motion dated 12th October 2016 and the same is allowed in terms of payers (a) and (b) with costs to be paid by the 3rd Respondent.
Orders accordingly.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
In presence of;
Exparte Applicant Absent
Respondents Absent
Counsel: Mr. Nyasimi for Exparte Applicant
M/S Bagwasi for Onyango for 3RD Respondent
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
6/12/2017
6/12/2017
S.M. Kibunja Judge
Oyugi court assistant
Parties absent
M/S Bagwasi for Onayngo for 3rd Respondent
Mr.Nyasimi for Exparte Applicant
Court: The Judgment dated and delivered in open court in presence of Mr. Nyasimi for the Exparte Applicant and M/S Bagwasi for Onyango for 3rd Respondent.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND – JUDGE
6/12/2017