Marion Wakanyi Kamau v Deliverance Church Registered Trustees & Geofrey Kamau Njuguna [2017] KEELC 1849 (KLR)

REPUBLIC  OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

MILIMANI LAW COURTS

ELC.  CASE NO. 12  OF   2011

MARION WAKANYI KAMAU………………………….…… PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DELIVERANCE CHURCH

REGISTERED TRUSTEES ……………….....…....…1ST DEFENDANT

GEOFREY KAMAU NJUGUNA………….………….2ND DEFENDANT

RULING

Coming up before me for determination are two applications, namely the Notice of Motion dated 3rd December 2015 (the “First Application”) and the Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2015 (the “Second Application”), both filed by the Plaintiff. In the First Application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking for the following orders:

1. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants produce the original Deed of Exchange dated 8th October 2008 to allow investigations to be conducted on it.

2. That the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to carry out investigations on the authenticity of the Deed of Exchange dated 8th October 2008 and circumstances surrounding its making and prepare and file their report in court.

3. That costs of the First Application be provided for.

In the Second Application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking for an order setting aside the temporary injunction issued against her by Lady Justice Ougo on 24th July 2012 and that the entry made in the title for L.R. No. 209/9938 pursuant to a court order issued in CMCC No. 10578 of 2006 restraining the Plaintiff from evicting the Defendants in respect of L.R. No. 209/9938/2 be removed.

The prayers sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant in the First Application cannot be granted owing to the fact that the hearing of this suit commenced on 23rd May 2013 and this matter is a part heard before this court. It is too late in the day for the Plaintiff to seek production of a document and investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations at this stage when the Plaintiff has already given her evidence-in-chief. On this ground, I hereby dismiss the First Application with costs to the Defendants.

The prayers sought in the Second Application shall also not be granted by this court because this suit is part heard by this court. The court considers it a better use of judicial resources to focus on concluding this part heard suit once and for all instead of turning focus on a prayer to set aside the interim injunction subsisting herein. Further, the prayer to remove an order issued in CMCC No. 10578 of 2006 cannot be issued by this court as there is no appeal before this court. The Second Applications is accordingly similarly dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is directed to fix this part heard suit for further hearing to facilitate the full and final determination thereof.

It is so ordered.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST  DAY OF SEPTEMBER  2017.

MARY M. GITUMBI

JUDGE