AMOS MWANGI KARANJA v THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR NYAHURURU & THE HON ATTORNEY GENERAl [2011] KEHC 1487 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO 67 OF 2011

AMOS MWANGI KARANJA………….............………….APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE DISTRICT  LAND REGISTRAR

NYAHURURU……………………………..…1STRESPONDENT

THE HON ATTORNEY GENERAl…………..2ND RESPONDENT

R U L I N G

The Ex parte  applicant herein is AmosKaranja, who seeks leave of this court  to commence Judicial Review  proceedings against the District   Lands Registrar Nyahururu, and the Hon. the Attorney General. He has also   named Interested Parties  in this matter. They are as follows:- Eddie Wambua Karanja, Nancy Wangui Karanja, Marata Wangari Kambi, David Njogu Kambi, Peter   Nderitu Kambi, Charles Muchina Kambi, Samuel Kiboi Kambi and Amos Weru Murigu.

The prayerssought in the Chamber Summons are as follows:-

1. Thatthis application   herewith   be certified as urgentand service of the same be dispensed with in the 1stinstance for reasons of urgency.

2. That this honorable court be pleased to grant leave tothe   applicant herein to apply for an Order ofPROHIBITION directed at the District   Land RegistrarNyahururu, the 1st respondent herein, his servants,Agents , persons acting   directly under his instructionsor any   other person whosoever acting on his behalffrom allowing any transactions, dealings, survey, sub-division or any other   adverse dealings in relation to allthe sub-divisions arising there from   and particularlyreferenced   at the District   lands Registry as 4991,4992,4993,4994, 4995 and 4996.

3. Thatthe applicant   herein be granted leave to applyfor an order of MANDAMUS directed at the DistrictLands Registrar, Nyahururu, the 1st respondent hereincompelling   him to forthwith cancel the sub-divisionsarising therefrom and particularly   referenced at the

District Lands Registry, Nyahururu as 4991,4992,4993,4994, 4995 and 4996 and   the same to revert toNyandarua /South Kinangop/66.

4. That the applicant herein be granted leave to apply fororder ofMANDAMUS directed at the District LandsRegistrar, Nyahururu, the 1st respondent herein compellinghim to forthwith recall and forthwith cancel the said titles held in the names of the 3rd 4th, 5th and 7th interested parties and the same be registered in the joint names of AMOS MWANGI KARANJA, EDDIE WAMBUA KARANJA and NANCY   WANGUI KARANJA, the administrators to the estate of the deceased person, KARANJA GATURU.

5. That the grant of leave herein do operate as stay ofan intended   transaction, dealings, transfer, sub-divisionsor any   other adverse   dealings in respect of all thatthat parcel if land known as Nyandarua/South

Kinangop/66 and all the sub-divisions arising therefromand particularly referenced at the District Lands

Registry, Nyahururu as 4991,4992,4993,4994,4995 and4996.

Theapplication   is grounded   on the statutory   statement and verifying   and supporting   affidavits   sworn by Amos   Mwangi Karanja   the applicant, who claims   to be one of the administrators   of   his later father’s estate (Karanja Gaturu ) with the 1st   and 2nd Interested Parties. (AMKI- Grant) . The applicant deponed that the deceased folio was the owner of Nyandarua/South Kinangop /66 having   purchased it from Kambi Kaniarithia , the late husband of the 3rd Interested  Party Marata Kambi . When   Kambi died in 1975, the 3rd interested party  filed a suit in Naivasha Magistrate’s Court, no 52 of 1985 Marata   Wangari   Karanja Vrs Gaturu Karanja (AMK 3) . The court found in favour of the applicant’s father, Gaturu Karanja that he had bought   the land and paid the full purchase   price. The elders award   made in Naivasha CC52/1985 was confirmed as judgement   of the Court. There have been numerous   disputes   over the land in various forums and the last   one was a decision by Justice   Mbogholi HCC Misc 33/10 delivered on 17/3/2011 in which   he   found the decision   on Naivasha PMCC 52/85 to be valid   and not   appealed against . Thereafter   the 3rd   and 7th Interested Parties with the first defendant   fraudulently, procured the subdivision   of the said land into   several parcels 4991 to 4996 as evidenced   by copies of titles (AMK 13) . The applicant  is apprehensive   that theInterested Parties are likelyto put up the land for sale and that is why he brought   these proceeding to preserve   the deceased’s   estate from wasting.

Ordinarily, thisapplication should   have been heard ex parte,   but the Judge   before whom the matter was presented, in his wisdom , ordered that the same be heard inter parties. The Respondent was served but   there was no appearance at the hearing . It proceeded to hearing ex parte.

At this stage the court need not consider the issues herein in much detail but  only need to determine whether the applicanthas demonstrated that he has an arguable   case. In   he case of NJUGUNA Vrs MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE (2000) IEA 184, discussed the test for whether or not   to commence Judicial Review proceedings should be granted the Court said.

“The test on to whether leave should be granted to an applicant for Judicial Review is whether without explaining the matter in any depth there is an arguable case that the relief sought will be granted on the hearing of the substantiveapplication”

The applicant is one of the administrators of the estate ofKaranja   Gaturu who   was the owner   of the land in despite Nyandarua/South Kinangop/66. The   applicant   has a genuine interest   in the said land.

The saidsuit   land has been   the subject of   protracted litigation in the courts. The last decision is that of   Justice Mbogholi delivered   on 17/3/2011 in HCC 33/O2 (O/S) in which   the court ruled that the subsequent   litigation to   the decision of   the court in RMCC 52/1985, lacked   foundation and   the orders founded   on the said litigation  were   void ab initio. The Respondents   herein acted on the application made by   the 3rd Interested Party to subdivide the land, based on the decision   of Justice   G.B.M Kariuki dated 30/9/05   which Justice   Mbogholi has ruled in the latter   decision to have been  obtained through misrepresentation of facts to the court and was said to be voidab initio. Based on the above   facts above,   I find that the applicant has demonstrated that he has an arguable case that might succeed   after the hearing of the Judicial Review application .

I have seen the prayers contained in the Chamber Summons . The subjectparcel of land has already  been   subdivided and   registered in the names of the 4th, 6th and 7th   interested Parties. So, can an order of   prohibition   lie?. The court of Appeal considered the   efficacy  and scope  of an order of prohibition in CA 266/1996, KENYA ATIONAL EXAMINATION COUNCIL VRS REPUBLIC EX P GEOFFREY GITHINJI  to be,……….

“it is an order from the High Court directedto an inferior   tribunal or body not to continue proceedings therein in   excess of its jurisdiction or in  icontravention   of the laws of the land. It lies, not   only for excess of jurisdiction or absence of it but also   for departure from the rules of natural   justice. It does not   however, lie   to correct the course, practice or procedure   of an inferior   tribunal or a wrong decision on the merits   of the proceedings”

In theinstant case, the 1st   respondent   has already   subdivided the land and titles   issued. The 1st Respondent   has completed   its work. An order of prohibition  what is yet   to be done or what is ongoing . There is nothing   to stop   in the instant   case.

The applicantalso seeks leave to apply for an order of mandamus  to compel  the 1st   respondent to cancel   the said titles / subdivisions   and recall the titles issued. Can a mandamus lie ?  In the same   Kenya National Examination Counsel   case   (supra) the court of appeal  exhaustively  discussed   the circumstances under which an order   of   mandamus   can issue, and quoted Halsbury’s Laws of England   4th Edition Vol 1 page 111 paragraph   89 and 90.

At paragraph90 the author says:-

“The ordermust command no more than the party   against which the application is made is legally bound to perform , where a general duty is imposed, a mandamus cannot require it   to be done at once. Where a statute which imposes a duty leaves discretion as to the mode the    performing duty  in   the hand of the party on whom the obligation is laid, a mandamus cannot command  the duty in question to be carried out in a specific way”

The question is,can the Land Registrar   cancel or recall titles that he has issued ?. Does he have that statutory duty? The duties   of the Land Registrar are set out   under section 8 of the   Registered   Land Act. It does   not include any of the functions   that the applicant wants him to perform i.e cancellation or recalling of titles . What happens if the Registrar does not?

In my view, the applicant has not moved this court forthe appropriate orders and the court will not grant   leave in vain. Even if

leave were granted no purpose will be served ultimately. For the above reasons   I decline to grant leave as prayed. The application is hereby   struck out. The applicant to bear his   own costs.

DATED AN DELIVERED THIS  21st DAY OF JUNE 2011

RPV WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

Ms Sika holding brief for  AlbertKhaminwa for applicant

Ms Wanjiku for 3rd,4th, 5th 6,th & 7th Interested Party

CC: Kennedy Oguma