Emfil Limited v Attorney General & 423 others [2016] KEELC 9 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MOMBASA

ELC CASE NO. 113 OF 2015

EMFIL LIMITED................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

-versus-

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL

& 423 OTHERS..................DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

RULING

1.  The Application under consideration is the Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2015 filed by the Plaintiff. It is supported by the Affidavit of VINAYCHARA DAMODAR ROPAT sworn on the same date. The Application seeks a total of 11 prayers the gravamen of which can be summarised as follows:

i. Spent

ii. Spent.

iii. Spent.

iv. Pending determination of the   suit, the   Defendants, their servants, agents or whosever be restrained from interfering, dealing, trespassing onto,  developing, approving any  development plans or  interfering in any way whatsoever with   the property  commonly knownas Kwale/Ramisi Kinondo Settlement  Schemeincluding L.R  Nos. Kwale/Ramisi Kinondo S.S.S Parcel No. 1 - 213.

v. A cancellation of all   titles issued by   the Defendants under the Settlement   Scheme  commonly known  as Kwale/Ramisi Kinondo Settlement Scheme including L.R  Nos. Kwale/Ramisi/Kinondo S.S.S

vi. That   the   Defendants, servants  and   their  agents  or  whosoever   be evicted from   the  Plaintiffs   property  known    as   Land    Reference Numbers 13433/6- 13433/143 from which the Defendants have created a settlement scheme  known  as Kwale/Ramisi Kinondo Settlement Scheme  including  L.R   Nos.   Kwale/Ramisi/Kinondo   S.S.S   Parcel Number 1 to Kwale/Ramisi/Kinondo S.S.S Parcel Number 213.

vii. The OCS Kwale be directed to provide security to ensure that any orders issued are complied with.

viii. The Inspector General of Police to ensure that the Plaintiffs properties referred to herein are adequately protected from invasion by squatters, or any other persons.

ix. Spent.

x. That the Plaintiff do give an undertaking as to damages.

xi. That costs be in the cause.

2.  The  Plaintiffs case  is  that in  1987  it bought the  property known  as  Land Reference   No. 12335/1 from  M/s  Associates Sugar  Company   Limited   and subsequently subdivided the  same  to over 150  plots  which  include the  138 parcels    the     subject    of    this     suit     (hereinafter    called     "the     suit property/properties").

3.  That  the   subdivisions  were   carried  out   after  obtaining  the   relevant approvals and  consents from  the  2nd Defendant and  other  concerned government departments.

4.  The Plaintiff averred that it has been in occupation of the suit property and has employed security guards to keep out trespassers and squatters. That however, in  late  October  or early  November  2006,  a group  of people  visited the suit  property claiming to have been allocated the same and  had letters of offer from  the  Director of Land  Adjudication and  Settlement. That  the  2nd Defendant issued  new  titles for  some  properties forming part  of the  suit property under  the  Registered Land  Act,  Cap.  300  Laws  of  Kenya  (now repealed) yet  the  suit   property falls  under the  regime   of  Registration of Titles  Act, Cap. 281 Laws of Kenya.

5.  The  Plaintiff stated that it  has  never  surrendered the  title   documents in respect  of the  suit  property to the Commissioner of Lands to necessitate conversion  of the  registration regime  from  Cap.  281 to Cap.  300 and the purported issuance of the   Title   Deeds   to   third parties were   therefore unlawful.

6.  The  Plaintiff  avers   that  the  1st   Defendant  has   through  Gazette  Notice Number  6652  (Special  Issue)  dated 14th  June 2011 and  published on 15th June 2015  purported  to  revoke  the  various titles  falling   under the  suit property and  stated that the said  parcels were preserved for public purposes and   the  allocation  to  the  Plaintiff was  illegal   and  unconstitutional.  The Plaintiff averred that the   Defendants continued to deal   with   the   suit property despite existence of restraining orders from the courts.

7.  The Plaintiff submitted that it is entitled to the orders sought. On prima facie case, the Plaintiff submitted that it has shown that it is the legal owner of the suit properties. That the Plaintiffs rights of ownership are entrenched in the Constitution and have been affirmed by judgments issued by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  As such, the Plaintiff submitted, the interim orders sought should   be granted since the suit   property was not available for allocation.

8.  On  irreparable loss,  the  Plaintiff submitted that  its  titles  constitute 119 prime  beach  plots in the  pristine Diani  area  which in total  measure over 400 acres.  That   it will be impossible to acquire   such property again.  That   as squatters, the Defendants are not capable of compensating the Plaintiff for the loss of its properties.

9.  Finally   on  balance of convenience,  the  Plaintiff submitted that  the  same should  be decided  in  its  favour  as it has  established its  rights of ownership and has,  since 1987, been in occupation of the suit  property.

10. The Application is opposed.  The 154th , 293rd and  306th  Defendants filed  a joint  Replying Affidavit   sworn  by ALEC VAN  WIJK on  17th September 2015  and   filed  on  18th September 2015.  The deponent deposed   that  the 154th ,  293rd   and  306th  Defendants purchased properties known  as KWALE RAMISI/KINONDO S.S.S  Parcel Numbers 139,  140,  56  and 146  for valuable  consideration  without  any   notice   of  defect   in   title.   That the Plaintiffs claim smacks of inexcusable indolence, and the Application is not only a gross  abuse  of the  court  process  but is also  premature,  misplaced, ill-informed  and  wholly unmerited.

11. The  155th  , 227th  , 231st  , 233rd  ,234th  and  395th  Respondents also  filed  joint grounds of opposition in which they stated that the  application is bad in law and  that the  orders sought are  not  tenable since  these Respondents have been in occupation of the  suit  property for almost  five (5) years.  Lastly that the orders sought are incapable of being implemented. They urged the court to dismiss the application with costs to them.

12. The 239th, 241st and 308th Defendants filed a joint Replying Affidavit sworn by JOHN DENHAM VICKERS and filed on 17th September 2015. The  deponent  deposed   that the   entities in  whose  names the   properties known  as  KWALE  RAMISI/KINONDO S.S.S Parcel Numbers 115,  116 and   147  are   currently  registered  obtained  good   titles  thereto  having purchased the  same  for valuable consideration without any  notice  of defect in title.

13. RONALD MUINDE KISIA, the  76thand  127thDefendant filed  a Replying Affidavit sworn  and  filed  on 29th October  2015. He  deposed  that he  is the holder of two title deeds over KWALE/RAMISI KINONDO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/22 and KWALE/RAMISI KINONDO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/ 41 which  he acquired as an  innocent purchaser for value  without notice and  as such  he should  not be made  to suffer.  That  if the  government officials  acted  illegally  he should  not  be made  to suffer  but be left to enjoy his parcel  of land  peacefully.

14. NASSOR ABDALLA MWACHIBULO, the 167thDefendant filed    a Replying  Affidavit sworn  and  filed  on 8th  October  2015 on behalf  of himself and 157th, 158th and  161st Defendants. According to the deponent, the titles of the suit properties were surrendered, cancelled and revoked when their leases expired and therefore the titles do not exist. The deponent denied that the Plaintiff has been in occupation of the suit properties.

15. In  their written submissions, the 157th, 158th , 161stand  167thDefendants submitted that  prayers 4  and   5  cannot   be  granted  in  an   interlocutory application since  the same  call for adducing of oral evidence.  They submitted that the  Plaintiff has  not satisfied the  conditions necessary for the  grant of temporary  injunction  as  laid   down  in  the   case  of  Giella vs.  Cassman Brown & Company Limited [1973] EA 358.

16. The 155th, 227th , 233rd , 234th and 395th  Defendants/Respondents submitted that the  application is an  abuse  of the court  process  as the  orders sought are  not tenable  in   law   and   even   if  they   were   to   be  granted,  they   cannot   be implemented. These   Respondents submit that the Applicant admits the existence of their titles. Secondly   that the property has changed and   is renamed which does not bear the name of the Applicant therefore the orders of injunction cannot be implemented.

17. In  regard to  prayer 5  &  6,  the  Respondents herein submit that  the  said prayers support the  submission that prayer  4 cannot  be granted.  Secondly the prayers of cancellation of title and eviction cannot be issued without the court   hearing any evidence   from   both parties. They concluded that the remainder of the prayers fails once the above prayers are refused. In support of their submissions, they relied on the Nigerian case of UKET VS OKPA (2005) LPELR-128876 (CA) and the renowned case of Giella vs Cassman Brown. The rest of the defendants did not file their submissions within the agreed timelines.

18. I have analysed the pleadings filed and the submissions rendered.  To begin with, prayer  no. 9 was  granted  exparte  and  thus service  of  process  done  through  the daily newspaper  as a result of which the defendants who are on record entered appearance. The core prayers for determination are nos. 4, 5 and 6.   Prayers 7, 8 and 10 are dependent on the success of the prayers 4, 5 and 6 for determination. In prayer 5 & 6, the Applicant sought for the cancellation of the titles and eviction of the Respondents from the suit properties. All the Respondents submitted that the Court cannot grant these prayer at an interlocutory stage.  In the grounds in support of the motion, the Applicant stated that the Respondents disregarded the stay orders issued by Odero J. and the Court of Appeal and proceeded to issue new titles.

19. The said titles if they were issued irregularly may easily be cancelled without a hearing if the orders for cancellation were taken out by way of Notice to Show Cause in the file in which the order was granted.  However  my  view  is  that  once  the  Applicant commenced a fresh suit then the peopled sued must be given an opportunity to explain the reasons they took such an activity in contravention of the existing court order or for the title holders to justify how they acquired their titles. If I give an order of cancellation at an interlocutory stage, I will be condemning the Respondents unheard contrary to the rules of natural justice.

20. Similar scenario would apply to issuance of eviction orders at this stage. In the wording of prayer 6, no mandatory injunction is sought neither is there any justification in the grounds or affidavit in support of the application why this court is called to grant the mandatory orders. I  do  therefore find  that the  prayers sought  in  nos  5  and  6  are premature at this stage as they require adduction of evidence before they can be allowed.

21. The Court is left now to determine whether there is merit in prayer 4.  The Applicant is asking the Court to issue orders restraining the Respondents from entering, dealing, trespassing   onto, developing, approving any development   plans or in any way interfering with the suit properties. In light of the fact that some of the Respondents stated that they are and have been in occupation of the different parcel numbers stated. And in the absence of clarity from the Applicants pleadings in terms of which Respondents are in occupation and who are not, the prayer for entering and trespassing onto is not available in the circumstances.

22. The Applicants has however demonstrated that at one time it was the registered owner of what was the original title of the suit property. The pleadings further reveal that the Applicant successfully challenged the order which cancelled its title. The result of this is that the suit property has two parallel titles with one set issued to the Respondents and the other held by the Applicant. To allow for both parties to present evidence and for this court to determine who the right owner of the suit property is, it is imperative that the status quo be maintained.

23. The status quo if not maintained would then the Applicant's suit will be conducted merely as an academic exercise. Therefore to achieve this status quo, I will partially allow prayer 4 of the application. This  prayer  is  allowed  to  the  extent  that  the Respondents are restrained from undertaking any new and  or further  developments on, approving any development plans or parting  with possession of the suit parcels described   as  Kwale/Ramisi   Kinondo/SSS   No  1 to  213  pending   hearing   and determination of the suit.

24. In order to maintain law and order given the number of Respondents involved, it is necessary for the Applicant to be provided with security while ensuring the order granted above is complied with. I have taken note of the finding of the Court in the case of MUCUHA VS RIPPLES LTD. The Police department in this instance is required to ensure  law  and  order  is  maintained  and  not  to enforce  a civil  order.  For this to be achieved, I do allow prayer no 7.

25. Lastly since  the application has partially succeeded  whose effect bars the Respondents from  undertaking  any  new  or  further  developments on  the  land  or  parting  with  its possession,  the Applicant shall give undertaking as to damages in case his suit does not succeed. Consequently, I grant prayer 10 of the motion and direct the Applicant to file an undertaking in damages within 30 days of this ruling. The parties be at liberty to agree on the wordings of the undertaking.

26. Costs follow the event. The application has partially succeeded therefore I make an order that each party to bear their costs of the application.

Ruling Dated & Delivered this 28th day of January 2016

A.OMOLLO

JUDGE