[2019] KEELC 3116 (KLR)
The court found that the omission of parcel number Muthambi/Gatua/503 from the original judgment was an accidental slip, as the parcel was part of the proceedings throughout. The Land Registrar's inability to execute the order without specific parcel numbers was reasonable. Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3116 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Royford Riungu Kuura; Plaintiff: Washngton Kirimi Kuura; Plaintiff: Charles Nyaga Kuura; Defendant: M. Kuura M’riria; Defendant: Tura Karinguri; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 112 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Clarification and Correction of Decree
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment corrected under section 99 Civil Procedure Act
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Title Cancellation, Rectification of Decree, Execution of Judgment, Land Register Restoration
- 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
Royford Riungu Kuura
Plaintiff
Washngton Kirimi Kuura
Plaintiff
Charles Nyaga Kuura
Plaintiff
M. Kuura M’riria
Defendant
Tura Karinguri
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Clarification and Correction of Decree
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should clarify and correct its judgment to specify the parcel numbers for cancellation by the Land Registrar.
- 2 Whether the omission of parcel number Muthambi/Gatua/503 in the original judgment was an accidental slip correctable under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 3 Whether the Land Registrar requires express identification of land parcels to execute the court's orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the omission of parcel number Muthambi/Gatua/503 from the original judgment was an accidental slip, as the parcel was part of the proceedings throughout. The Land Registrar's inability to execute the order without specific parcel numbers was reasonable. Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has the power to correct such accidental omissions to ensure its orders are clear and enforceable. The court therefore amended the judgment to expressly include both Muthambi/Gatua/1266 and Muthambi/Gatua/503 in the orders for cancellation of titles and restoration of the land register, thereby enabling the Land Registrar to comply with the decree. The correction...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment corrected under section 99 Civil Procedure Act
Orders
- The judgment delivered on 19th March, 2018 is corrected to specify that the District Land Registrar – Chuka is to cancel all titles issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants after Parcel Numbers Muthambi/Gatua/1266 and Muthambi/Gatua/503 were subdivided.
- The Land Registrar – Chuka is directed to restore the Land Register/Record pursuant to the order made in H.C Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 1983.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
55 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 112 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC 147 OF 2009
ROYFORD RIUNGU KUURA...................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
WASHNGTON KIRIMI KUURA..............................................2ND PLAINTIFF
CHARLES NYAGA KUURA....................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M.KUURA M’RIRIA..............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
TURA KARINGURI...............................................................2ND DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................................................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 20th May, 2019 and seeks orders:
a. That this application be certified urgent and service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
b. That the honourable court be pleased to give directions and clarifications that are necessary for the complete execution of the decree of the court issued on 19th March, 2018with respect to orders issued to the District Land Registrar Chuka.
c. That the honourable court be pleased to make such order as it may deem fit in the circumstances.
d. That costs of this application be provided for.
2. It is supported by the affidavit of Charles Nyaga Kuura and has the following grounds:
1. That the applicants are the decree-holders from the judgment of the court of 19th March, 2018.
2. That among the various orders granted by the honourable court, orders (a), (b) and (c) were directed at the district Land Registrar – Chuka.
3. That upon service of the decree on the District Land Registrar – Chuka, the Registrar intimated that Order (c) could not be enforced in its current nature.
4. That whereas there is a direction for him to cancel titles belonging to the 1st and 2nd defendant herein the parcel numbers are unknown and hence he can’t proceed with enforcement.
5. That for purposes of compliance the parcel numbers that need cancellation have to be indicated to avoid confusion and error on the part of the Registrar.
6. That from the pleadings herein, the parcels in dispute were parcel number 1266 an 503 that are registered to the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively.
7. That these are the properties that the honourable made orders against and the District Land Registrar insists that they have to be indicated on the decree before he proceeds to carry out the orders of the court.
3. The applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on 20th May, 2019 reads as follows:
I, Charles Nyaga Kuura of Post Office Box Number 147 Thika in the Republic of Kenya do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. I am an adult of sound mind and have authority to make this affidavit on my own and on behalf of my co-applicants.
2. That the honourable court delivered judgment in favour of I and my co-applicants on the 19th March, 2018.
3. That thereafter I and my co-applicants applied and were supplied with the decree. Annexed hereinto and marked “CNK 1” is a copy of the decree.
4. That further I and my co-applicant were issued with a certificate of costs with respect to party and party bill of costs. Annexed hereinto and marked “CNK 2” is a copy f the certificate of costs.
5. That order (b) and (c) of the judgment were directed at the District Land Registrar – Chuka; pursuant to Order (b) The Land Registrar was directed to restore the Land Register/Record pursuant to an order made in H.C Misc. App No. 257 of 1983 while Order (c) directed the Land Registrar to cancel titles issued to the 1st and 2nd defendant.
6. That upon visiting the Land Registrar – Chuka and serving him with the decree of this honourable court, the Land Registrar expressed difficulty in executing the decree as it was, on account of lack of particularization on the land titles that needed cancellation.
7. That without the court expressly proving the parcel numbers that were to be cancelled the Registrar was apprehensive and unwilling to enforce the orders and this could only be remedied by the court, necessitating this application.
8. That without the court’s intervention for the ends of justice to be met, the applicants herein will suffer grave injustice and immeasurable loss bearing in mind it’s a land matter where they have sought for justice more than 4 decades now.
9. That it is in the interest of justice and fairness that the court intervenes to ensure compliance with its orders.
10. That what is hereinabove deponed to is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
4. Mr. Manyara told the court that the Land Registrar Chuka had said that he could not implement order (C) in the judgment because Parcel No. MUTHAMBI/GATUA/503 was not particularized in the judgment. He told the court that this parcel was all along part of the proceedings.
5. I have perused the proceedings and find that what Mr. Manyara has said is correct. A correction in terms of the provisions of section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is merited to correct this accidental omission.
6. In the circumstances, the judgment delivered by the court on 19th March, 2018 should read as follows:
(19) Judgment is entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants in the following terms:
a) It is declared that the subdivision by the 3rd defendant’s agents of the original Land Reference Numbers Muthambi/Gatua/1266 and Muthambi/Gatua/503 and subsequent changes in the Land Register/ Record at Chuka are null and void.
b) An order is hereby issued directing the Land Registrar – Chuka to restore the Land Register /Record pursuant to an order made in H.C Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 1983.
c) The District Land Registrar – Chuka is ordered to cancel all titles issued to the 1st and 2nd defendants after Parcel Numbers Muthambi/Gatua/1266 and Muthambi/Gatua/503 were subdivided.
d) Nominal General Damages in the sum of Kshs. 200,000/= are awarded to the plaintiffs.
e) An order is issued directing that the defendants be evicted by the apposite legal entities with the assistance of the Officer Commanding Police Station (OCS) who is in charge of the area where the apposite land is situated.
f) Costs of this suit are awarded to the plaintiffs.
g) Interest on (d) and (f) is awarded to the plaintiffs with effect from the date of delivery of this judgment.
h) Suits which were consolidated with this suit through an order issued by this Court on 20th February, 2014 are deemed heard and determined.
7. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 22nd day of May, 2019 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Manyara for the Applicant
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE