[2019] KEELC 1745 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1745 (KLR)

The Court found that the subdivision and registration of the three acres to the Plaintiff had been carried out in accordance with the Court's prior judgment and directions. The Defendant's application sought to challenge a process that had already been lawfully executed and was, in substance, an attempt to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 1745 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Teddy Davis Ngala; Defendant: Pola Ngala alias Pola Charo Kaniki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 36 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Land Subdivision, Execution of Judgment, Registration of Title, Conservatory Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Subdivision Execution of Judgment Registration of Title Conservatory Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teddy Davis Ngala

Plaintiff

Pola Ngala alias Pola Charo Kaniki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to a conservatory order barring sub-division or interference by the Plaintiff of Kilifi/Mtondia/1893.
  2. 2 Whether sub-divisions already undertaken by the Plaintiff should be declared null and void.
  3. 3 Whether the Court should issue directions on how the three acres adjudged to the Plaintiff should be sub-divided.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the subdivision and registration of the three acres to the Plaintiff had been carried out in accordance with the Court's prior judgment and directions. The Defendant's application sought to challenge a process that had already been lawfully executed and was, in substance, an attempt to re-litigate issues previously settled by the Court and affirmed on appeal. There was no basis for issuing conservatory orders or nullifying the completed subdivision, as the Defendant's rights had been addressed and protected through the earlier proceedings. The application was therefore dismissed as lacking merit, and the Plaintiff was awarded costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 17th October 2017 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.