[2023] KEELC 21543 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with its order to serve the application dated 4th August 2023 on the defendants and to file an affidavit of service. There was no evidence on record that the application was properly served after the court's directive. The absence of service and non-compliance with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 21543 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Clifford George Rooke; Defendant: Ruth Nyawira Wambui; Defendant: Ahmed Waladi Ahamed; Defendant: Nzai Kombe; Defendant: Mary Gumo Mapingu; Defendant: Ziro Bahati Johnson; Defendant: Petter Joseph Gichoya Mbugua; Defendant: Omagwa Angima & Company Advocates; Defendant: Hellen Wambui Kimani Wainana; Defendant: Patrick Kimani Wainaina; Defendant: Registrar Kilifi Lands Registry
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 146 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application struck out for non-compliance with court orders regarding service
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Service of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Transfer of Land, Caution on Title
- 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
Clifford George Rooke
Plaintiff
Ruth Nyawira Wambui
Defendant
Ahmed Waladi Ahamed
Defendant
Nzai Kombe
Defendant
Mary Gumo Mapingu
Defendant
Ziro Bahati Johnson
Defendant
Petter Joseph Gichoya Mbugua
Defendant
Omagwa Angima & Company Advocates
Defendant
Hellen Wambui Kimani Wainana
Defendant
Patrick Kimani Wainaina
Defendant
Registrar Kilifi Lands Registry
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with Plot Number KILIFI/JIMBA/395 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's application was properly served on the defendants as required by law.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the plaint to join an additional party.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with its order to serve the application dated 4th August 2023 on the defendants and to file an affidavit of service. There was no evidence on record that the application was properly served after the court's directive. The absence of service and non-compliance with court orders rendered the application procedurally defective. Consequently, the court struck out the plaintiff's motion for want of compliance, emphasizing that procedural requirements, particularly service of process, are fundamental to the fair administration of justice and must be strictly observed.
Court Disposition
application struck out for non-compliance with court orders regarding service
Orders
- The plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 4/8/2023 is struck out.
- The matter is to be listed on 29/11/2023 for the taking of a hearing date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Rooke v Wambui & 9 others (Environment & Land Case 146 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 21543 (KLR) (15 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21543 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Environment & Land Case 146 of 2018
FM Njoroge, J
November 15, 2023
Between
Clifford George Rooke
Plaintiff
and
Ruth Nyawira Wambui
1st Defendant
Ahmed Waladi Ahamed
2nd Defendant
Nzai Kombe
3rd Defendant
Mary Gumo Mapingu
4th Defendant
Ziro Bahati Johnson
5th Defendant
Petter Joseph Gichoya Mbugua
6th Defendant
Omagwa Angima & Company Advocates
7th Defendant
Hellen Wambui Kimani Wainana
8th Defendant
Patrick Kimani Wainaina
9th Defendant
Registrar Kilifi Lands Registry
10th Defendant
Ruling
1. This ruling is in respect of Notice of Motion dated 4th August, 2023 by the Plaintiff seeking the following Orders:1. That for the reasons set out in the Certificate of Urgency filed herewith, service thereof be dispensed with in the first instance and the same be certified as urgent and be heard ex parte in the first instance for grant of orders (2), (3) and (4);2. A temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendants herein, themselves, servants, agents and or whomsoever claiming through them from alienating, offering for sale, selling, charging, transferring, developing and or in any manner howsoever from dealing with Plot Number KILFI/JIMBA/395 pending the hearing and determination of this application and the suit;3. A temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendants/Respondents either by themselves, their agents, servants and/or representatives from inhibiting, alienating, dealing and /or in any manner dealing and developing Plot Number KILIFI/JIMBA/395 pending the hearing and determination of this application and the instant suit;4. The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Watamu Police Station, to provide necessary security on Plot Number KILIFI/JIMBA/395 in order to enforce this Honourable Court orders;5. The plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint as per the annexed draft and/or the draft amended plaint be allowed as properly on record as amended and be served upon the intended 11th Defendant within 2 days;6. The Honourable Court be pleased to make any further orders or directions as it may deem fit and just in the circumstances; and7. Costs for the application be provided for;
2. The grounds upon which the application is made are at the foot of the application and are elaborated in the attached supporting affidavit of the plaintiff. Namely, they are that there is urgent need to preserve the status of the Plot Number KILIFI/JIMBA/395 as well as need to amend the plaint. It is alleged that the 1st -5th defendants executed a sale agreement on 19/11/14 with the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property and that the plaintiff made part-payment of the consideration subject to certain conditions incumbent upon the defendants regarding regularization of title, upon fulfilment of which they would transfer the property to the plaintiff. The present suit was filed as a result of the failure by the defendants to transfer the suit land as agreed by the parties, and as a result of the intention evident on the part of the defendants to transfer the suit land to the 8th and 9th defendants. In the year 2021 the plaintiff lodged a caution on the title to the suit property and has never withdrawn the same, but nevertheless the 1st-5th defendant have entered into another agreement with, and the property has been transferred to, the 8th and 9th defendants notwithstanding the pendency of the present suit. It is stated that upon perusing the defendants’ documents, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to amend the plaint to join another party. Further, the 8th and 9th defendants have since commenced developments on the suit property and unless the orders sought are granted the applicant may suffer irreparable harm that may not be compensable by way of damages. It is also added that the respondents may not suffer any prejudice by the granting of the orders sought.
3. There is an affidavit of service dated 24/8/2023 stating that the application was served upon all the defendants ‘advocates. There is another affidavit of service dated 18/9/2023 stating that the hearing notice for 2/10/2023 had been served on all the defendants’ advocates. However, the defendants did not file any responses to the application. On 2/10/2023 the defendant’s counsel namely Mr. Marubu and Mr. Omagwa as well as Ms. Lutta were present in court while the plaintiff’s counsel was absent. All of them claimed not to have been served with the motion, and the court gave orders that the motion dated 4/8/2023 should be served and an affidavit of service filed. This court does not see any affidavit of service filed in the court file after that order issued, and it cannot therefore tell whether or not the application was served. I am therefore not satisfied that the plaintiff’s application dated 4th August, 2023 was served. There are also no submissions filed by the plaintiff nor any filed by the defendants.
4. In the circumstances where the plaintiff ought to be hotly pursuing the application, he has portrayed himself negatively as a very lackadaisical applicant. By reason of non-compliance with court orders, I hereby strike out the motion dated 4/8/2023 and I order that the matter be listed on 29/11/2023 for the taking of a hearing date.
DATED, SIGNED AND ISSUED AT MALINDI ON THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI.