ELIJAH NGUJIRI MWENENIA v NYAHURURU DISTRICT L.D.T & others [2011] KEHC 1909 (KLR)

REPUBLICOF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO 77 OF 2010

ELIJAH NGUJIRI MWENENIA....................................................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

NYAHURURU DISTRICT L.D.T & OTHERS...........................................................................DEFENDANTS

RULING

By a Notice of Motion dated 12/7/2010, the Ex parte Applicant, Elijah Ngunjiri Mweneniamoved this court for an order of prohibition to issue against the 1st Responden,t   Nyahururu Land Dispute Tribunal (LDT), and the Interested Party, Kirichu Ndegwa   prohibiting   them from implementing   the decision made on 24/7/2008 by the 1st Respondent in   LDT, claim no. 71/06;    an order of   prohibition do issue against   the Principal   Magistrate Nyahururu, prohibiting   it from executing   its decree made on 18/8/09 in Land Dispute   case no 35/08. The motion  was based   on the undated statutory statement filed in court on 6/7/2010 and a verifying   affidavit   sworn by the applicant   on 6/7/2010 .

The applicant was authorizedto file this application by a power of attorney   dated 15/9/2009, donated to him by   Tabitha Wangechi, Murigu, Mary Wangui Murigigu, John Mutahi Murigu, Jane Wamuyu Murigu and Charles Gichuki Murigu who   are the owners of   Lakipia/Salama/Mukuru Block 1/828. He deponed   that the land   measures about 11. 34Ha. ( see certificate   of search and title deed- ENM 2, 3 & 4,) while   the Interested Party   is the registered   owner   of Laikipia/Salama/Mukuru/Block 1/1993, measuring about 12. 955 Ha. The   plots are adjacent to each other. The Interested Party filed a claim before   the LDT   claiming to have purchased  part of   plot 828 . The 1st   respondent made an award directing   the surveyor to resurvey the 2 plots, 828 and 193, make the necessary amendments and alter the  title . (the award is ENM6. The award was adopted on 18/8/09 by the 2nd respondent(ENM7).The applicant   therefore contends that the 1st   respondent acted ultra vines its jurisdiction and the decision is void. For fear that the  judgement   of the court could be executed,     this  application was filed.

When the application came up for hearing , theapplicants’ counsel  was not heard for failure to pay the Court Adjournment Fees. The 1st and 2nd respondent’s   counsel   Mr Njuguna and Mr   Karanja who appeared for the Interested Party argued the preliminary Objection which had been   filed by the Interested Party on 16/11/2010. Counsel for the interested party   urged that the application is against a person who is not party to   these proceedings because the decision sought to be quashed  and which attached to   the application  (ENM ) is from Laikipia West District Rumuruti Land Disputes Tribunal. A perusal of the proceedings   in Claim No.1/06, before the Land Disputes Tribunal reveal that the parties were Kiruchu ndegwa , the claimant Agnes Muthoni Maingi, Charles Gichuki Murigu,Grace Wairimu Wamuthuni and  John Mutahi   were objectorts, the tribunal is named as “LAIKIPIA WEST DISTRICT RUMURUTI DIVISIONAL LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL” which is not   party to these proceedings. The 1st respondent herein  “ NYANDARUA DISTRICT   LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL” It is true that the 1st defendant is non – suited   and the orders sought can not   issue against  the 1st   respondent who  has not   made any decision that   is subject   to challenge.

Secondly, it wasurged that the 2nd   respondent does not make any decisions but merely   adopts the award of the LDT Tribunal.   Section 7 of the LDT   provides   for adoption of the Tribunal’s   decision by   the court. It   reads as follows: -

“section 7(1) . The chairman of the Tribunal shall cause thedecision of the Tribunal to be filed in the Magistrate’s Courttogether with any depositions or documents which have beentaken or  proved before the Tribunal.

(2) The court shall enter judgement   in accordance with thedecision of the Tribunal and upon judgement being entered,a decree shall issue and shall be enforceablein the matter asprovided forunder   the Civil Procedure Act”.

Under the above  section, the Magistrate can not question or amend or reject the Tribunal’s award. The Magistrate’s dutyis limited to adopting   the award be it correct or   erroneous. It then issues a  decree for purposes of execution .The 2nd Respondent   can therefore not be faulted for adopting the award of the Tribunal. Cannot be deemed to have acted ultra vines  its powers. I do agree with the findings of the court in DAVID CHELUGET VRS KIPSAN CHEPKWONY ELDORET HCC 151 OF2000 which held that the Magistrate has no discretion to question the decision of the Tribunal.

It was alsocounsel’s   submission   that   a decision has already been made and adopted by the PM’s Court Nyahururu and there is nothing that can   be prohibited.

In the KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATION COUNCIL VRSREPUBLIC   Ex parte GEOFFREY   GITHINJI   CA 266/1996, the Court of Appeal discussed the  efficacy  and scope   of   an order   of prohibition . The court   said:-

“ whatdoes an ORDER  OF   PROHIBITION do and when will issue? It is an order from  the High Court directed to an inferior  Tribunal   or body which forbids   that tribunal  or body   to continue   proceedings therein in excess of its Jurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land. It lies not   only   in excess   of jurisdiction or absence of it, but also for a departure  from the rules of natural justice. It does not, however, lie to correct the course, practice and procedure of  an inferior tribunal or a wrong   decision on the merits   of the proceedings( see Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition  vol 1 at page 37   paragraph 128) .”

The LDT having already made the decision, can not be prohibited by an order of prohibition. The proceedings are complete and it would be an order in futility.

As regards the 2nd Respondent, it has adopted the order for  purposes of the execution. Prohibition on issued to be but after it is prohibited, what happens next? An order ofprohibition can not issue against the 2nd respondent from proceeding with execution, and be left in abeyance. It   could   only   be effective  if an order of certiorari had been sought. Since none was sought,  it would be futile   for the court to   grant the said order.

The applicant had also soughtan order of   prohibition against the Interested party. Judicial review   is a public law remedy and cannot issue against a private individual in their private capacity.

In sum I do find that the Notice of Motion dated 12/7/2010 is incompetent, bad in law and I douphold the Interested parties the objection. The   Notice of motion is hereby struck out with costs to the Interested Party and respondent.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24th DAY OF JUNE 2011

R.P.V WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr Kibelion for applicant

Keroya holdingbrief for Mr   Mwangi  for Interested Party

CC: Kennedy Oguma