Pasha Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Farmers Association & Kepha Nyabera [2015] KEHC 63 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU

HCC  CASE NO. 560 OF 1998.

PASHA ENTERPRISES LTD.........................................................APPLICANT

AND

KENYA FARMERS ASSOCIATION...................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

EXPARTE

KEPHA NYABERA……..……………............................................. PLAINTIFF

RULING

1.  The  application dated  23. 7.13 seeks  orders  to issue directing the defendant/decree  holder by itself, agents,  employers, tenants, servants, or anybody claiming authority from  it  to vacate  the property known  as Machakos block  1/67 within seven (7) days of issuance of the order.

2.  Further that,  in the  event  that  the  defendant or its  agents or anybody else  claiming  from  it  fails  to  vacate,   then   they  be forcefully  evicted  by  an auctioneer of the applicant's choice with  the  assistance of the OCS Machakos  Police Station. That the costs of the eviction, be borne by the respondent/defendant.

3.  The basis for these  prayers  is  that   the applicant  (PASHA ENTERPRISES) is the owner of the said  parcel which has arisen subsequent to consolidation of parcels no.MACHAKOS TOWN BLOCK 1/68 AND 1/67. The applicant purchased these properties at  a  public  auction as  a result  of execution of a decree issued against the defendant in this matter.

4.  The court issued an order declaring the public sale complete, and vesting the properties to  the  applicant. However the defendant has refused to   surrender vacant possession of the properties.

5. In the   supporting  affidavit   sworn by  Samuel Theuri, the applicant's director, he explains that  he bought the  parcels at a. public auction on 13th  October 2009, but the defendant has deployed individuals to remain on the said  parcel, thus depriving him of the vacant possession. A title document in respect of the suit property is  annexed, showing the applicant as the registered owner.

6.  However, this claim to ownership is disputed, and   in a replying affidavit sworn by Symon K. Cherogony, the defendants managing director, he deposes that parcel   no.  Machakos Town block 1/67 was not created as  a result of consolidating parcels no.  Machakos town No.1/68 and no. 1/69, which remain in existence alongside no. 1/67  as   separate  and independent portions, each with its own title. It is   his contention that   parcel   no.  1/67 and   1/68 are   owned  and registered in  the  name  of County  council  of Machakos while no. 1/69 is in the  name  of Samuel Kimondo Theuri,   and   none of the  properties is  registered in  the  name   of the applicant (Pasha  enterprises)

7.  The  defendant claims  being  in  occupation of the  applicants property and  contendeds that  the  application for  eviction  is misconceived, and  misplaced.  Further  to  this,   a  preliminary objection  has  been raised  to the effect that this  being  a claim to ownership, occupation and  use of land,  the same  should  only be heard   as a substantive suit   by  the Environment and Land Court  .  The defendant also points out that the vesting orders were obtained exparte and   without and   service on the defendant. To prove the separate and current existence of the three parcels under reference, the defendant has annexed copies of search certificates dated  25th  February 2014.

8. The  applicant in  a  supplementary affidavit,  seeks to rely on  a memorandum of sale  and  certificate of lease  to  justify  his claims,  plus the   vesting  order which directed  the  Commissioner of Lands to issue  a lease in respect of the said  parcels, and   the Deputy  Registrar  had   been  ordered  to  execute the  transfer documents.

9. The court  heard  the  application and  the  preliminary objection  raised,  simultaneously. Mr. Karanja,  on behalf  of the  applicant submitted  that in a consent filed in the  year 2012, between  the  plaintiff and  the defendant, the defendant acknowledged that  the  suit  land was sold at a public auction in the course of recovery of a debt.  He points   out  that this  is a  fact which  does  not need to.be proved, and   for  the defence to  now say the  property does not  belong to the  applicant  is dishonest.  He argues that  the purchaser was  not  a party  to  the  suit, and  there  would  have been  no  other   basis for  him paying  that sum of Kshs. 9million.

While acknowledging the  information in the search documents, Counsel  contends that, at the time of the sale,  lease certificates  had  not been issued, but  a consent was entered into that the  Commissioner of Lands  do  issue the  certificate   of lease to  the  purchaser directly. Further consent allowed the Deputy Registrar to sign transfer documents in respect of the two parcels.

10. Mrs.  Magana,  on  behalf  of the defendant submits that  what applicant is seeking  is  vacant  possession of the  property  on the basis of being a purchaser yet the records  of the sale  show  that only property  i.e no.  1/67 was sold, and there is no basis for claiming the other two parcels. She  has  referred  to  consent order  dated  4th December  2012,  which  she   says clearly  referred to one property  i.e Machakos Municipality Block 1/67 and  that is why the lease  certificate  is issued in  respect of that same parcel. She   points   out   that since   there   is  an obvious discrepancy regarding who   is the   registered owner  of the two parcels,  the same   raises a  substantive  issue which  cannot be dealt  with  by way of an  affidavit,  or an  application,  especially because  Machakos   County  Council   will remain the  registered owners of the  property (and  will be   deprived of the same if the prayers are  granted) are  not  enjoined in this suit.  She urges the court to find that this is a substantive matter which   should only be dealt with in a substantive suit.

11. Mrs.  Magana acknowledges that there does  not  exist  another search dated 6th May 2014 in  respect of parcel block  1/67 in the  names of Pasha Enterprises Limited  and  opines that  since all the searches presented emanate from the  two  land  registries, there  is a possibility that the   property  has two different registers or   green  card  OR the  search certificate is a forgery. Counsel also  concedes that a consent was  recorded between the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant on  4th  December 2012 but  .   points out that it was  not  the  decree holder who  sold the  property - this was  a forced  sale and   the  consent alone  cannot  be  sufficient  to  give  title  where   none  exists. She  suggests that   there may  have  been an  error and  the  judgment debtor probably thought it had title  on  the  property, when  it did not.

Counsel also submits that the issues in this matter relate to land. And should be handled by the Environment and Land Court which has jurisdiction.  The issues here   are very simple:-

a). Is the  applicant seeking orders  relating to one  property or three  parcels.

b). Does this court has jurisdiction to  deal with  this matter.

12. From   the  annextures presented,  it would seem that there still exists three parcels i.e no.  1/67,1/68 and  1/69. The sale  refers to property no. 1/67 and   it is not clear under what process no.1/68 consolidated to  form  one unit, and have  one  title  issued. If the  orders sought were  to issue, there would  still  be a  problem because the applicant will  be expecting vacant  possession  of two  parcels, yet the  record  shows just  one  parcel while no. 1/68  remains in the  name of  Machakos County Council.

13. However,  even  if we  were  to  go  over  that  hurdle, there still remains the issue of  the   sanctity of that public auction, in view of  the   fact   that there does   not   appear  to  be  any   evidence  demonstrating that  the defendant ever  owned  the  property which was  sold at the  auction. I say this because the search certificate shows the owner of the property as  Machakos County Council, who  is not  a party to this suit.  This means that were orders to be issued, the Machakos County Council will be condemned unheard.  It would have been prudent to enjoin the Council as a party to this suit, just as way to wrap up any loose ends.

Then there is the issue regarding jurisdiction - after all the real contention here is who owns, who should occupy and use the said parcel.

Article 162 (2) of the Constitution provides as follows;-

a).  ………………………………..

b). The environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land

14. Although reference has been made to section 34 of the Civil Procedure Rules . I am in agreement with Mrs.  Magana that the  same does  not  apply, as  that  provision  makes   reference to  parties to  the  suit.   The   applicant was not  a party to. the suit. He came in as a late   entrant,  after  conclusion of  the  suit, he  was  a purchaser.  The  applicant's  entrance   into   the  matter introduced issues  relating to   title  and  possession which I  think fall within the  docket of  the  Environment and Land  court. Due to these observations, I decline to grant the order for .vacant possession and/or eviction, and that application is dismissed. Further, I hold and find that the preliminary objection raised herein has merit   to  the extent that;

a). With  regard to  jurisdiction, this  matter should be dealt with  by the  Environment and  Land  court Judge.

b). The matters raised are of such substantive nature and affect the rights of a third party who is not a participant in this proceedings,

i. That it would be improper to issue such orders.

ii. The nature of the orders sought cannot be determined through affidavits by a simple affidavit.   They are substantive, as to merit a substantive suit being filed, involving all the  affected parties.

The notice of motion dated 23rd July 2013 is thus dismissed with costs to the defendant/respondent.

Dated, Signed and  written at  Bungoma this 19th day of December 2014.

H. A.OMONDI

JUDGE

Delivered and dated this 4th day of February 2015.