[2015] KEHC 5387 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of leave to apply for orders of prohibition and mandamus. The removal of the caveat from the land parcel LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 by the respondents, without notifying the applicant or following proper procedure, constituted a breach of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5387 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Virginia Wangari Njenga (suing as the administrator of the estate of Charles Njenga Mukuna); Respondent: Land Registrar, Murang'a; Respondent: Edward Kinyua Nduriri (administrator of the estate of Henry Nduriri Nyaga); Respondent: Eliud Nicholas Gitonga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 3 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Institute Judicial Review Proceedings
- Outcome
- Leave granted to apply for orders of prohibition and mandamus; leave to operate as a stay of further transactions on the suit land; directions given for filing and service of substantive motion.
- Judges
- BN Olao
- Legal Topics
- Removal of Caveat, Judicial Review Leave, Natural Justice Breach, Land Title Entries
- 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
Virginia Wangari Njenga (suing as the administrator of the estate of Charles Njenga Mukuna)
Applicant
Land Registrar, Murang'a
Respondent
Edward Kinyua Nduriri (administrator of the estate of Henry Nduriri Nyaga)
Respondent
Eliud Nicholas Gitonga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Institute Judicial Review Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for orders of prohibition and mandamus regarding the land parcel LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86.
- 2 Whether the removal of the caveat by the respondents without notice to the applicant breached the rules of natural justice.
- 3 Whether leave should operate as a stay of further transactions on the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of leave to apply for orders of prohibition and mandamus. The removal of the caveat from the land parcel LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 by the respondents, without notifying the applicant or following proper procedure, constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice. Given the ongoing litigation over the same parcel in Nyeri High Court Civil Suit No. 146 of 2011, the court determined that it was just and proper to grant leave and to order that such leave operate as a stay of further transactions on the land until the substantive motion is heard and determined. The court directed the applicant to file the...
Court Disposition
Leave granted to apply for orders of prohibition and mandamus; leave to operate as a stay of further transactions on the suit land; directions given for filing and service of substantive motion.
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for orders of prohibition and mandamus as prayed.
- Leave granted shall operate as a stay of any further transaction in respect of parcel LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 until determination of the Notice of Motion or further court orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERUGOYA
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 3 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INSTITUTE JUDICIAL REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS IN THE NATURE OF ORDERS FOR MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITON
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
VIRGINIA WANGARI NJENGA.......................................APPLICANT
(SUING AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
CHARLES NJENGA MUKUNA)
VERSUS
LAND REGISTRAR, MURANG’A........................1ST RESPONDENT
EDWARD KINYUA NDURIRI................................2ND RESPONDENT
(THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
HENRY NDURIRI NYAGA)
ELIUD NICHOLAS GITONGA.............................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
By a Chamber Summons dated and filed herein on 9th April 2015, the Ex-parte Applicant VIRGINIA WANGARI NJENGA seeks the following orders:-
1. That this Honourable Court do grant leave to the Applicant herein to apply for an order of prohibition baring the Land Registrar Murang’a from entertaining any further transactions or from making any further entries against the parcel of land known as LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 until further orders of this Court or any other Court or High Court Nyeri.
2. That this Honourable Court do grant leave to the Applicant herein to apply for an order of mandamus ordering the Land Registrar Murang’a to remove the entries against the parcel of land known as LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 made on 8th September 2014 i.e. removal of caution in favour of the applicant herein and transfer to the 3rd respondent
3. That the grant of leave to apply for the aforesaid orders do operate as a stay of any further transaction in respect ofLOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 till the hearing and determination of this matter or until further orders of this Court or High Court Nyeri.
The application is supported by the verifying affidavit of the Applicant.
I have considered the application as argued by Mr. Mugo Kamau Advocate for the Applicant as well as the verifying affidavit and other annextures.
From the application, what comes out is that the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent are parties in Nyeri High Court Civil Suit No. 146 of 2011 in which the subject matter is the parcel of land known as LOC 2/MAKOMBOKI/86 which is pending judgment before Mr. Justice A. Ombwayo who has however been transferred to the High Court Eldoret. However, while that judgment is still pending and notwithstanding the fact that a caveat had been placed on the said parcel of land, the 1st and 2nd Respondent secretly removed the said caveat without following the proper procedure or inviting the Applicant which was in breach of the rules of Natural Justice. The said caveat was removed on 9th September 2014.
In my view, the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for the orders sought in her application dated 9th April 2015. In accordance with Rule 3(1) of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, I hereby grant the orders sought therein and direct that the Applicant do file the Notice of Motion within 21 days from the date hereof. I further direct pursuant to Rule 3(2) of the said Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the Applicant shall serve the said Notice of Motion on the Respondent and all other parties that may be affected by it within 14 days of filing and thereafter file an affidavit indicating who has been served with the Notice of Motion.
I further direct pursuant to Rule 1(4) of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the leave granted herein shall operate as a stay of any further transaction in respect of the parcel of land known as LOC 2/MAKOMBOK/86 till the hearing and determination of the Notice of Motion to be filed or until further orders of this Court.
Costs shall be in the Notice of Motion.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
24TH APRIL, 2015
24/4/2015
Before
B.N. Olao – Judge
Gichia – CC
Mr. Abubakar for Mr. Mugo for Applicant – present
Respondent
COURT: Ruling delivered this 24th day of April, 2015 in open Court
Mr. Abubakar for Mr. Mugo for Applicant present.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
24TH APRIL, 2015