ESTHER WANJIRU KAMAU v GEORGE CHEGE KAMAU [2011] KEHC 2572 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

HCC 415OF   1998

ESTHER WANJIRU KAMAU..........................................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

GEORGE CHEGE KAMAU............................................................................................DEFENDANT

RULING

By a Chamber Summons dated 10/12/2010, the applicant, GeorgeChege Kamau ,sought the following orders against the   plaintiff/respondent :-

1. Spent

2. That the court do order that the subdivision of Dundori/Miroreni Block 2/56 by the plaintiff /Respodent is null and void and consequently   the court do order the cancellation of Title   Numbers Dundori/Miroreni Block 2/2289 and Dundori/Miroreni Block 2/2290.

3. That the plaintiff/Respondent  be arrested and committed to imprisonment for disobedience of this courts order dated 29th September, 1999.

4. Thatpending   the  hearing and determination of this suit and application, an injunction do issue against the plaintiff/Respondent , her agents, servants or employees from alienating, selling, charging and /or in any way interfering with the suit land especially the subdivision   known as Dundori /Miroreni Block 2/2290.

The application is expressed to be brought  underOrder 39 Rule 1(a), 2(2) and (3), sections 1A,1B and 3A of Civil Procedure Act, supported by grounds found on the face of the application, an affidavit sworn by George   Chege Kamau, dated 10/12/2010 and a further affidavit  sworn on 4/2/2011 . It is the applicant’s case that on 29/9/1999, the   court ordered a stay of execution in respect of orders   issued   in the judgement   read on 28/6/1999 pending   hearing of the  appeal. The applicant     filed the appeal 274/2006 George   Chege Kamau   VRS Esther   Wanjiru Kamau, challenging   the said judgement and   her appeal is yet to be determined. In the month of February 2010 the respondent went ahead to have the suit land Dundori/Miroreni Block 2/56 covering  4. 5 HA subdivided into two  plots that is,  Dundori/Miroreni Block 2/2289 and 2/2290. The applicant   was served   with   a notice to vacate the land in  mid November 2010( GCK-1) and that is why he filed this application . The applicant contends that he was only served with the order issued on 29/9/1999 issued after he filed an application   for injunction . Mr Kagucia the    respondent’s Advocate having sent a court order, to Mr   Kagucia counsel for the applicant,    on 26/1/2010 for his approval( GCK 3(a) & 3(b) but   the counsel  declined to sign it and   vide the letter   of 29/1/2010 addressed to the Deputy Registrar ,the counsel sought  that   the   decree be placed before   the judge for settlement of terms   under Order 20 Rule 7(4) of the CPR ( GCK-4) The terms were never settled and   on 16/3/2010 the court confirmed that  the order of stay   made on 29/9/1999 and extracted on 27/6/2000 was still in force. It ordered the decree to be stayed   pending    the hearing   and determination   of the appeal. The applicant further contends   at that the decree used to effect the subdivision had mistakes, was incompetent and all the transactions   that followed were null an void.

In opposing  the application,Esther   Wanjira   Kamau swore   a replying   affidavit dated 20/1/2011 in which she deponed that the  application is brought in bad faith and intended   to   deny her the enjoyment   of her judgement.  She   deponed that the subdivision   of the suit   land was done on  the strength   of the order given on 28/6/1999 and issued on 11/2/2010 and duly signed by the Deputy registrar and also based on the court of Appeal order made on 24/9/2004 in NKR Civil application No. 70/2004 (38/04 UR). She further   deponed   that the order of 29/9/99 was overtaken   by the Court of Appeal order of 24/9/2004 in NKR CA 70/2004 where   she was granted a go ahead to execute the judgement . She exhibited the said court   order.

The order of stay that was issued by Justice Rimita on 28/6/1999 and issued on 29/9/99 was issued after an inter- partes  hearing . The stay order was issued pending hearing  of the appeal. There is no evidence that this order was ever set aside. The appeal is yet to beheard and determined . It seems that the Court of Appeal in making the order of 24/9/2004,   was considering   an application   for stay from  the same decision   of Justice  Rimita   that   was delivered on 28/6/1999. It is not clear why a similar application was made before   the Court of appeal regarding  the same issue of stay. The respondent  did not exhibit the proceedings in the Court  of  Appeal for this   Court to ascertain   why an application   which had been dealt with   by Justice Rimita   was being considered  by the Court of Appeal again.   I would agree with   Justice Maraga’s   observation that in absence of   any evidence to the contrary,   the order of the court made on 29/9/1999 is still in existence and inforce, in which  the execution   of the decree of that court   was stayed pending   hearing of the appeal .

I have perused the court order purportedly relied upon by the respondent in proceeding with execution. It is the draftdecree   that was sent to   the applicant   for   approval   vide the letter dated 26/1/2010 ( GCK3(a) but the applicant   sought the same to be placed before the judge for settlement of terms. There   is no evidence that the same was ever placed before   the judge for   that purpose. The decree used   in execution  is amended   to read   that it was so given  on  29/9/1999 instead   of 1998  and issued by the Court   on 11/2/2010instead of 11/2/1998. The alteration   made to read in l999 and 2010 respectively  is not  countersigned  by the Deputy Registrar who   signed it. It is worth noting that no order  had been issued in 1998. There is   material alteration on   the decree that should have been clarified  and I would agree with the   appellant   that the decree is suspect and  does not seem to be authentic. It seems   to be a forgery . It   is even questionable that  the Registrar of Lands who effected the subdivision could rely on such a questionable document to effect a  subdivision of   land.

The appellantseeks orders that the applicant   be arrested and committed to civil jail for disobedience of   the court order. In effect the applicant wants to have the respondent cited   for contempt, however, I find that the court has not been moved for grant of   such orders. The substantive law governing contempt proceeding is section 5 of the Judicature Act. That section provides that the Court   shall have power   to punish for contempt like   the High Court of   Justice of England. In England, the Law of contempt is governed   by Order 52 of   the Supreme Court practice and Procedure Rules.

The applicant should have soughtthe leave of the court to commence contempt   proceedings. Thereafter, he should have filed a motion   and served it on the respondent to enable her respond. None of the above was done and the contempt   proceedings   being of a quasi-criminal nature,   the detailed procedure should have been followed to ensure that Justice  is done to all the parties. The orders  sought at prayer 3, to have the   respondent   arrested and   committed to civil   jail cannot be   granted.

Prayer 2 is  final, in the nature of a declaration . It cannot be granted at this interlocutory stage. However, since the land has been subdivided   contrary  to a clear order of stay issued by the Court, it is in the interests of Justice   that the substratum   of this appeal being  the suit land, be preserved .

The Courttherefore grants prayer 4 of the  Chamber Summons dated 10/12/2010 restraining the Respondent from interfering with the suit land pending hearing and determination of the appeal. Costs in the cause.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS11th DAY OF MAY 2011

R.P.VWENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

Ms  Mugweru  for  Applicant

MrsKereri for Respondent

CC: Kennedy Oguma