[2016] KEHC 3733 (KLR)
The court found that the admissions relied upon by the defendant were neither clear nor unequivocal, as both parties claimed to be in possession of the suit land at different times and the status quo as at 29th November 2009 was disputed. The matter was not plain and obvious, and substantial evidence had already...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 3733 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rhoda Cheplangat Kandie; Plaintiff: Kigen Kandie; Plaintiff: Kiptui Kandie; Defendant: Kanziwa Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 252 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Admission
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judgment on Admission, Adverse Possession, Summary Judgment, Status Quo 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
Rhoda Cheplangat Kandie
Plaintiff
Kigen Kandie
Plaintiff
Kiptui Kandie
Plaintiff
Kanziwa Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Admission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have made admissions sufficient to warrant judgment on admission under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the dispute over possession of the suit land is plain and obvious or raises triable issues requiring full hearing.
- 3 Whether the application for summary judgment should be granted in light of conflicting evidence on possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the admissions relied upon by the defendant were neither clear nor unequivocal, as both parties claimed to be in possession of the suit land at different times and the status quo as at 29th November 2009 was disputed. The matter was not plain and obvious, and substantial evidence had already been taken with three plaintiff witnesses having testified. The existence of triable issues regarding possession and the conflicting claims precluded the grant of judgment on admission or summary judgment. The court held that to allow the application would unjustly deprive the plaintiffs of their right to a full hearing, and would amount to a travesty of justice. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 20th July 2012 is disallowed as being without merit.
- The respondents shall have costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
INTHE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL SUIT NUMBER 252 OF 2007(O.S)
1. RHODA CHEPLANGAT KANDIE ........................................1STPLAINTIFF
2. KIGEN KANDIE..................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
3. KIPTUI KANDIE.................................................................3RDPLAINTIFF
(All suing as Administrator of estate of Aaron Kimosop Kandie)
VERSUS
KANZIWA LIMITED.......................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. By a Notice of Motion application dated 20th July 2012, the Defendant sought an order that judgment on admission be entered against the plaintiffs by dismissal of the suit in its entirety. The application is based on the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The plaintiff, David Kahumbu swore an affidavit in support on the 20th July 2012 and further relies on grounds as appear on the face of the application. It is stated that by their pleadings and oral evidence in court, the plaintiffs admitted that they are not in possession of the suit land and were not even at the commencement of the suit.
The application is opposed by a replying affidavit sworn on the 16th February 2012 by the second plaintiff. On the onset, this court was informed that the case is partheard before Justice Emukule J, and substantial evidence had been taken.
2. For the applicant, it is submitted that the suit seeks to determine the issue of adverse possession of the plaintiffs upon the defendants land parcel. It is on record that the defendant took possession of the suit land in 2004 and is in occupation since. As such, counsel for the defendant submits that there is no need to proceed with hearing of the case as that translates to waste of court time. The court is urged to allow the application.
3. The Respondents/plaintiffs have objected to the grant of the orders sought. It is submitted that by the time this originating summons was taken out on the 16th April 2013, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that the plaintiffs took possession in 1982 upto 2004 when they were evicted but got back possession by 2007.
It is also submitted that an order of status quowas issued by the court on 29th November 2009. At this time, it is submitted, the plaintiffs were in possession but also the defendant had invaded part of the land. With these allegations and counter allegations, it is the respondents submission that the case should proceed to full hearing.
4. Ms. Magana Advocate for the applicant reiterated that as at 29th November 2009 when order of status quowas granted, the defendant/applicant was in possession and is up to date. On the same breath, the plaintiff's claim to be in possession. The court has considered the application and arguments by both counsel.
5. For an order of entry of judgment on Admission to be issued, the court must satisfy itself that the admission by the party against whom judgment ought to be entered has expressly and equivocably admitted the claim, and that there is no room for guess work. This is a claim on adverse possession of land.
Each party claims to be in occupation. Status quoas at 29th November 2009 is in dispute. The case is partheard. From the court proceedings, three plaintiff witnesses have testified. The last time the case was in court for hearing was on the 13th January 2012. This application was filed on the 20th July 2012.
Needless to say, the delay in prosecuting the application has caused a lot of delay in the finalization of the case.
6. For summary judgment to be granted, the court must be satisfied that the matter is plain and obvious and where it is not, a party is not to be deprived of his right to have his case tried, if necessary where there has been discovery and oral evidence. Where a party shows as bonafidetriable issue, he must be allowed to attend the case without conditions – See Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation vs Daber Enterprises Ltd (2000) I EA 75.
Where a bona fidedefence and triable issues have been disclosed, the court has no discretion to exercise in regard to the defendants or plaintiff's right to prosecute or defend. See Momanyi vs Hatimy and Another 2003) 2 EA600.
7. For the defendant to be entitled to Judgment on admission such admissions must be plain and clear, and there should be no room for doubt. The proceedings in the present case do not portray circumstances of clear and plain admissions.
The court would be doing an injustice to the plaintiffs if it were to allow the application that would in effect lock out the plaintiffs from the seat of justice. That by all means would be a traversity of justice.
For those reasons, the application dated 20th July 2012 is disallowed as being without merit.
The Respondents shall have costs of the application.
8. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 14thday of July 2016
JANETMULWA
JUDGE