[2022] KEELC 2643 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not provided any evidence of attempts to execute the decree or to serve the decree on the interested party, nor had the applicant demonstrated that the status of the land had changed in contravention of the court's orders. The application failed to disclose which documents the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 2643 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: The District Commissioner (As Chairman Meru Central Land Dispute Tribunal); Respondent: Land Disputes Tribunal Abothuguchi Division; Interested Party: Margaret Marete; Exparte: Mwitaiti Mugwika
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 163 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Orders, Execution of Decrees, Land Disputes Tribunal Awards, Prohibition and Certiorari
- 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
The District Commissioner (As Chairman Meru Central Land Dispute Tribunal)
Respondent
Land Disputes Tribunal Abothuguchi Division
Respondent
Margaret Marete
Interested Party
Mwitaiti Mugwika
Exparte
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interested party can be compelled to sign documents to effect transfer and reinstate land title following a quashed Land Dispute Tribunal award.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated efforts to execute the decree or served the decree on the interested party.
- 3 Whether the application is merited in the absence of evidence of execution steps or change of land status.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not provided any evidence of attempts to execute the decree or to serve the decree on the interested party, nor had the applicant demonstrated that the status of the land had changed in contravention of the court's orders. The application failed to disclose which documents the interested party had allegedly refused to sign or when such refusal occurred. Additionally, the decree was issued in 2018, and no notice to show cause had been served as required by Order 22 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules for decrees not executed within one year. In the absence of evidence of execution steps or non-compliance, the court held that there was no merit in the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the interested party.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
Republic v The District Commissioner (As Chairman Meru Central Land Dispute Tribunal) & another; Marete (Interested Party); Mugwika (Exparte) (Judicial Review 163 of 2006) [2022] KEELC 2643 (KLR) (6 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 2643 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Judicial Review 163 of 2006
CK Nzili, J
July 6, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI/PROHIBITION AGAINST THE MERU CENTRAL DISTRICT LAND DISPUTES TRIBULAL ABOTHUGUCHI AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 & 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTERED LAND ACT CAP 300 LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF MERU CENTRAL LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 98 OF 2005 AND IN THE MATTER OFLAND PARCEL NO. ABOTHUGUCHI/MAKANDUNE/107ANDIN THE MATTER OF MERU CMC L.D.T. NO. 19 OF 2006 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT NO. 18/90
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
The District Commissioner (As Chairman Meru Central Land Dispute Tribunal)
1st Respondent
Land Disputes Tribunal Abothuguchi Division
2nd Respondent
and
Margaret Marete
Interested Party
and
Mwitaiti Mugwika
Exparte
Ruling
1. The court is asked to order the interested party to sign all the appropriate documents to cancel the subdivisions made regarding Abothuguchi/Makandune/107, reinstate the title as it was before the Land Dispute Tribunal decision and in the alternative authorize the Deputy Registrar to effect the transfers.
2. The application is supported by the affidavits of Mwitaiti Mugwika sworn on 10. 1.2022. The reasons given are that the court quashed the decision of the Land Dispute Tribunal in its judgment dated 14. 6.2018, but the interested party has refused or neglected to sign the appropriate documents to effect the transfer.
3. It is not in dispute that a decree dated 5. 10. 2018 was issued by this court quashing the proceedings and the award of the 1st respondent regarding Land Dispute Tribunal Case No. 98 of 2005. Similarly, an order of prohibition was issued restraining the respondents from implementing the aforesaid award regarding L.R No. Abothuguchi/Makandune/107.
4. The applicant herein now says the interested party has refused or neglected to sign the appropriate documents in order to effect the transfer and reinstate the land to its original state.
5. There is nothing attached to this application to show any efforts of execution of the decree against the respondents. Nothing has been attached to show that the respondents and by extension the interested party was served with the decree and perhaps has failed to honour it. The decree is also dated 2018. Order 22 rule 18 Civil Procedure Rulesprovides if a party has not executed a decree within one year, a notice to show cause has to be served upon the offending party why execution should not issue.
6. The applicant says the interested party has neglected to sign some papers to effect the transfers. When and which documents she has allegedly refused or neglected to sign have not been disclosed to this court.
7. Similarly, there is nothing by way of an official search to demonstrate that the status of the land has changed after the judgment was issued in contravention of the decree.
8. More over the decree was affecting the Meru Chief Magistrate court’s Land Dispute Tribunal No. 19 of 2006. It is not clear if there was an attempt to execute the decree contrary to the stay orders granted by Lenaola J. as he then was on 26. 10. 2006.
9. In the premises I find no merits in this application. The same is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURTTHIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022In presence of:C/A: KananuMokua for applicantGichunge for interested partyHON. C.K. NZILIELC JUDGE