[2016] KEELC 1248 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of conservatory orders. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence linking himself to ownership of the suit property, as the documents annexed did not demonstrate any legal interest in Kwale/Mkongani B'/295. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 1248 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sudi Hamisi; Respondent: Matano Juma Mbaruku; Respondent: Land Registrar Kwale; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 265A of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Conservatory Orders, Ownership Disputes, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof
- 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
Sudi Hamisi
Applicant
Matano Juma Mbaruku
Respondent
Land Registrar Kwale
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Conservatory Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of conservatory orders over land parcel Kwale/Mkongani B'/295.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated ownership or a legal interest in the suit property.
- 3 Whether the 1st Respondent should be restrained from dealing with the suit property pending determination of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of conservatory orders. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence linking himself to ownership of the suit property, as the documents annexed did not demonstrate any legal interest in Kwale/Mkongani B'/295. The certificate of official search and register showed the 1st Respondent as the registered owner, and there was no evidence of fraud or any ongoing attempt to evict the applicant. The decree in ELC 66 of 2014 did not grant eviction orders but merely struck out the applicant's suit as time-barred. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders,...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for conservatory orders is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBSA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC CASE NO. 265 A OF 2014
SUDI HAMISI …...............................................................................................PETITIONER
AND
MATANO JUMA MBARUKU
LAND REGISTRAR KWALE
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................................................RESPONDENTS
RULING
The Petitioner moved this Court under Rule 12, 19, 23(1), 24, 20 and 21 of
of the Constituion (Proetection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)Practice and Procedure Rules 2013 and article 22 (4), 23 (3) (b), (c) of the Constituion. In the motion, the Petioner sought an order ;
1) Spent
2) Spent
3) That a conservatory order be issued prohibiting and restraining the respondents or any other person from alienating, meddling in, transferring, attempting to transfer or holding themselves out as owners and howsoever interferring with the land parcel No Kwale/Mkongani/B'/295 measuring 17. 55 Ha pending hearing and determination of the Petition herein.
4) The costs of the application be provided for.
The motion is supported by the affidavit of Sudi Hamisi and the grounds listed on the face of the application. In the Supporting affidavit, the applicant annexed copies of the following documents ;
Letter dated 24. 10. 2013 from DLA and S Officer Kwale /Msambweni.
Certificate of official search issued on 27. 10. 2014
Chief's letter dated 7. 1.76
Photographs
Green card for parcel No Kwale/Mkongani B/295
Ruling and Decree in ELC 66 of 2014
The application is opposed by the 1st Respondent vide a replying affidavit filed. In the replying affidavit, the 1st Respondent pointed out errors on the face of the application which does not go into the roots or the substance of this claim. He has admitted as much as that they are confusions made by the applicant. As regards the substance, the 1st Respondent, deposed that the search reveals he is the owner of the suit land free from all encumbrances. He also deposed that the applicant has not annexed any evidence of ownership of the suit property.
I haave seen the Petitioner's submissions on record. I have not seen for the 1st Respondent although an indication was made that they had been filed. The Petitioner submits that the decree issued in ELC 66 of 2014 made no declaration and that the decree needs to be investigated. He also submitted that he is in occupation of the said land and stands to suffer irreparable loss if the orders herein are granted.
For the orders to be granted, the applicant ought to lay a basis of having a prima facie with probability of succeeding. The applicant deposes that he owns the suit land. In his affidavit, he deposed to have annexed a title deed. As pointed out by the 1st Respondent, annex SH 1 (a) is a letter from the adjudication office confirming that plot No 375 Mkongani B is recorded in the name of Sudi Hamisi (applicant).
The applicant did not create any link between plot No 375 which is in Mkongani B adjudication Section and the suit plot. The annexed certificate of search and certified copy of the register do show that the 1st Respondent as the owner of the suit property. Lastly in the chief's letter dated 7. 1.76 which the applicant deposes as an agreement does not identify any parcel number or the land in question.
The applicant's own documents do not support his claim to the land. The applicant sta ted that he lives on the suit land which the 1st Respondent now wants to evict him from. The applicant deposes that the 1st Respondent is using the decree in ELC 66 of 2014. The decree struck out the applicant's suit for being time barred. It did not give any eviction orders. The applicant has not demonstrated to this Court that there have been any attempts by the 1st Respondent to evict him from where he lives. Such attempts if any were not stated on the grounds on the face of the application or the affidavit in support thereof. Lastly, the applicant ha sshown the Court that the suit plot Kwale/Mkongani B'/295 is owned by the 1st Respondent. This court has not been shown any cause why the 1st Respondent should be restrained from dealing with the plot since his regisration as the owner has not been concluded as fraudulent.
In conclusion, I find no merit in the aplication and dismiss it with costs to the 1st Respondent.
Ruling Dated, Delivered and Signed at Mombasa this 13th day of July 2016.
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE