[2013] KEHC 3061 (KLR)
The court found that the subdivision of Plot 90 was irregular and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, Plot 592 does not form part of Plot 90, and the purported reduction in the size of Plot 90 is invalid. The court clarified that Plot 90 retains its original size of 100ft by 100ft, as the irregular...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3061 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Robin Githinji; Defendant: Peter Wanjohi Warui; Defendant: Kerugoya Kutus Municipality Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 83 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Amendment of Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment amended to clarify that Plot 90 remains 100ft by 100ft; subdivision declared irregular.
- Judges
- HI Ong'udi
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Judgment, Clarification of Orders, Plot Size Dispute, Irregular Subdivision
- 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
Robin Githinji
Plaintiff
Peter Wanjohi Warui
Defendant
Kerugoya Kutus Municipality Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Amendment of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the subdivision of Plot 90 was regular and lawful.
- 2 Whether Plot 592 forms part of Plot 90.
- 3 What is the correct size of Plot 90 after the alleged subdivision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the subdivision of Plot 90 was irregular and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, Plot 592 does not form part of Plot 90, and the purported reduction in the size of Plot 90 is invalid. The court clarified that Plot 90 retains its original size of 100ft by 100ft, as the irregular subdivision cannot legally alter its dimensions. This clarification was made pursuant to Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, upon the request of both parties, to correct the record and resolve any ambiguity regarding the size of the plots in question.
Court Disposition
Judgment amended to clarify that Plot 90 remains 100ft by 100ft; subdivision declared irregular.
Orders
- Plot 90 maintains its original size of 100ft by 100ft.
- Subdivision of Plot 90 is declared irregular and of no legal effect.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Embu
Civil Case 83 of 1998 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
ROBIN GITHINJI...................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PETER WANJOHI WARUI.........................................1ST DEFENDANT
KERUGOYA KUTUS MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL...........2ND DEFENDANT
AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT
UNDER SECTION 99 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT
On 17/4/2013 this file was placed before me with a request that I clarify an issue concerning the size of Plot 90 and Plot 592 each measured 50ft by 100ft. The Deputy Town Clerk stated that Plot 90 initially measured 100ft by 100ft but after subdivision was reduced to 50ft by 100ft. But this subdivision was irregular.
And having found that Plot 592 is not part of Plot 90 and that the supposed to have been subdivision of Plot 90 was irregular, I do find that Plot 90 maintains its original size i.e. 100ft by 100ft. I think the clarification has been made, under the provision of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act upon the request of both parties.
DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED AT EMBU THIS 3RD OF MAY 2013.
H.I. ONG'UDI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
N/A for or by parties
Njue CC