[2018] KEELC 735 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant the enforcement of the previous order regarding the boundary of Kalama/Katanga/629. The applicant did not take reasonable steps, such as hiring a private surveyor to independently verify the boundary, and instead relied on casting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 735 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Kimeu Nguku; Respondent: Kioko Maundu; Respondent: Johnstone Muli Maundu; Respondent: Meshack Mutunga Maundu; Respondent: Musya Maundu; Respondent: Kyalo Maundu; Respondent: County Surveyor Machakos
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Enforcement of Judgments, Land Adjudication, Survey Disputes
- 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
Stephen Kimeu Nguku
Applicant
Kioko Maundu
Respondent
Johnstone Muli Maundu
Respondent
Meshack Mutunga Maundu
Respondent
Musya Maundu
Respondent
Kyalo Maundu
Respondent
County Surveyor Machakos
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should compel the County Surveyor and Respondents to restore boundaries of Kalama/Katanga/629 as per previous judgment.
- 2 Whether the application is res judicata due to prior decisions.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the boundary dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant the enforcement of the previous order regarding the boundary of Kalama/Katanga/629. The applicant did not take reasonable steps, such as hiring a private surveyor to independently verify the boundary, and instead relied on casting aspersions on the County Surveyor's integrity. The court also noted that the matter had been previously determined and that the applicant's approach did not merit the orders sought. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 19th February, 2018 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. MISC. APPLN. NO. 9 OF 2018
STEPHEN KIMEU NGUKU.................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
KIOKO MAUNDU......................................................1ST RESPONDENT
JOHNSTONE MULI MAUNDU...............................2ND RESPONDENT
MESHACK MUTUNGA MAUNDU.........................3RD RESPONDENT
MUSYA MAUNDU.....................................................4TH RESPONDENT
KYALO MAUNDU.....................................................5TH RESPONDENT
COUNTY SURVEYOR MACHAKOS.....................6TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. In the Application dated 19th February, 2018, the Applicant is seeking for the following orders:
a. That an order compelling the County Surveyor Machakos and the Respondents to restore the boundaries in the suit land known as Kalama/Katanga/629 as per the Judgment of the court of 5th April, 2006 in Misc. Case No. 20/06.
b. That the costs of the Application be borne by the Respondents.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Respondents are the sons of Philip Maundu Kithome who was the Plaintiff in Miscellaneous Application Number 20 of 2006; that the court adopted the decision of the Tribunal and ordered that the disputed boundaries should remain as established by the Akitondo clan and that the County Surveyor has not complied with the order of the court.
3. According to the Affidavit of the Plaintiff, the dispute in respect to the suit land started in 1972 and that the County Surveyor should be directed to visit the suit land and fix the boundaries.
4. The Respondents filed Grounds of Opposition in which they averred that the Application is res judicata having been dealt with by Odunga J. on 10th December, 2012; that this court does not have jurisdiction to deal with a boundary dispute and that the Respondents are not the personal Representatives of the Estate of Philip Maundu Kithome.
5. According to the Respondents, the Applicant should have filed the current Application in HC. MISC. No. 20 of 2006 and that the said boundary has been fixed on numerous occasions.
6. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondents filed submissions. They relied on their respective Affidavits.
7. The Applicant in this matter is seeking for the enforcement of the order that was made by the Minister in Land Appeal No. 88 of 1982. In the said decision, the Minister gave the following directions:
“The District Surveyor, the LAO (the Land Adjudication Officer) and the chief should visit the disputed land and fix the boundaries on the ground to agree and correspond with the boundary on the map; and the Appellants should meet the expenses of the replacement of the boundary for it was them who uprooted the sisals planted after the objection.”
8. The above decision emanated from the decision of the Land Adjudication Officer dated 5th November, 1976 in which the said officer agreed with the boundary as drawn by the clan. The sketch of the said boundary has been annexed on the decision of the Land Adjudication Officer.
9. The Applicant has annexed on his Affidavit the letters dated 6th January, 2016 and 23rd August, 2016 in which the County Surveyor, Machakos, informed the parties that he shall visit the land on 16th September, 2016 with a view of picking the boundary as directed by the court.
10. According to the letter dated 26th October, 2016 addressed to the Director of Surveys, the Applicant was not satisfied with the way the County Surveyor picked and fixed the disputed boundary. In the said letter, the Applicant requested for another surveyor to be sent to the ground.
11. The tone and tenure of the letter by the Applicant dated 26th October, 2016 portrays the Applicant as someone who has little regard for professionalism. Indeed, according to the letter of the Applicant, the surveyor who visited the suit land “developed personal interest” in the land and picked his own boundary inside Plot No. 629.
12. Other than casting aspersion on the character and integrity of the County Surveyor, the Applicant has not himself hired a private Surveyor to come up with a survey plan depicting the correct boundaries. That is what the Applicant should do instead of lamenting about the character of the County Surveyor.
13. My observation above leads me to one conclusion: the Applicant does not deserve the orders which he is seeking in the Application dated 19th February, 2018. The said Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE