Peter Kuria Kanyuku v Nancy Wanjiku Kaara, Peter Kamau Githaiga & Murang’a District Land Registrar [2017] KEELC 3595 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT NYERI

ELC CASE NO. 287 OF 2015

(FormerlyNAIROBI  ELC NO. 1212 OF 2015)

PETER KURIA KANYUKU................................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

NANCY WANJIKU KAARA...............................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

PETER KAMAU GITHAIGA.............................................2ND DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

MURANG’A DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR...................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

RULING

Introduction

1.         By a plaint dated 25th November, 2015, the plaintiff herein,            Peter Kuria Kanyuku, brought this suit seeking the reliefs       enumerated therein against the defendants jointly and          severally.

2.         The plaintiff’s case is that the 1st defendant irregularly         obtained a title deed in respect of title No.             Loc.19/Kiawambogo/2656 (the suit property) and later       transferred it to the 2nd defendant herein.

3.         Explaining that the 2nd defendant has threatened to evict     his son who resides in the suit property, the plaintiff avers that his son refused to heed the 2nd defendant’s demand      leading to commencement of a suit at Murang’a Law            Court’s to wit, Murang’a CMCC No. 10 of 2015. It is pointed        out that in the Murang’a case, the 2nd defendant seeks eviction orders against the plaintiff’s son.

4.         Maintaining that the suit property was transferred to the 1st and 2nd defendant illegally, the plaintiff contends that the 1st       and 2nd defendants’ registration as the proprietors of the      suit property, contravened his right to acquire and own          property and was to that extent a nullity in law.

5.         Simultaneously with the plaint, the plaintiff filed the notice             of motion of even date seeking the following reliefs:-

1.         Certification of the application as urgent and        deserving to be heard ex partein the first             instance;

2.         A temporary injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd             defendants by themselves, their servants, agents         and /or any other person claiming through them   from entering, remaining upon, using, dealing with    or otherwise transacting upon the suit property or           any other title derived there from pending hearing             of the application and the suit.

3.         Stay of proceedings in Murang’a CMCC No.10 of           2015, Kangema PMCC Land Dispute Tribunal Case            No.29 of 2008 and the appeal in Nyeri Provincial Appeals Committee.

4.         An order directing the OCS Kangema Police        Station to ensure compliance with the orders             herein, if issued.

5.         Costs of the application.

6.         The application is premised on the grounds that the plaintiff            is the registered proprietor of the suit property; that the 1st    respondent unprocedurally obtained title deeds to the suit    property. The plaintiff is apprehensive that unless the   orders sought are granted, the respondents may continue      to deal with the suit property in a matter prejudicial to his             interest therein (may evict him and his family from the suit property). The respondents may also transfer the suit     property to unsuspecting members of the public.

7.         The orders sought are said to be necessary in order to           uphold and safeguard the applicant’s constitutional right to protection of property.

8.         In reply and opposition to the application the 2nd       defendant/respondent vide his replying affidavit sworn on        31st May, 2016 has deposed that he is the lawful     registered proprietor of the suit property having obtained it          for valuable consideration without notice. He points out that           the property was transferred to him through a lawful court            decree which has never been set aside.

9.         Based on the document marked PKK-5 annexed to the       applicant’s supporting affidavit, it is deposed that there is     nothing to stay in Kangema Principal Magistrate courts        Land Disputes Tribunal Case No.29 of 2008.

10.       With regard to the Murang’a Civil Case No.10 of 2015, the             2nd respondent has deposed that the reliefs sought are         different from those sought in the current proceedings and that the defendant in that suit is not a party to this suit.

11.       Terming the application scandalous, misconceived, and        frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court, the 2nd   respondent contends that the orders sought are untenable     in law.

12.       The plaintiff/applicant is faulted for having failed to use the            right legal process of challenging orders allegedly          irregularly obtained.

13.       When the matter came up for hearing counsel for the            applicant, Mr. Njomo, informed the court that the applicant    is the registered proprietor of the suit property and pointed out that the suit property was subject of proceedings filed        by the 1st defendant/respondent before the defunct Land     Disputes Tribunal. He further pointed out that the Tribunal made an award in favour of the 1st respondent (directed       that the suit property be transferred to the 1st    defendant/respondent), which decision the applicant            appealed before the Provincial Appeals Tribunal. He explained that before the appeal was heard and         determined, pursuant to orders obtained in Kangema     Principal Magistrate Court, the award was adopted as the    judgment of the court and the suit property transferred to            the 2nd defendant/respondent without the applicant’s title    being cancelled.

14.       After the suit property was registered in his name, the 2nd     defendant/respondent commenced a civil case in Murang’a         law courts seeking to evict the plaintiff from the land. He    pointed out that the Murang’a suit is still pending and urged      the court to stay it.

15.       Based on the provisions of Section 3of the Land Dispute    Tribunal Act (LDTA, repealed), counsel for the applicant,         submitted that the tribunal exceeded its mandate by             dealing with issues of title. He informed the court that the         suit property had been given to the plaintiff vide Nairobi     Succession Cause No.69 of 2001 and submitted that any           challenge to the title held by his client ought to have been    made in the succession proceedings.

16.       Counsel for the applicant relied on the following      authorities:-

a)         Republic v. Kajiado North District Ngong Land   Disputes Tribunal & Another ex parte Caroline         Wambugu Ngunjiri & 2 Others (2014) e KLR;

b)         Republic v. Chairman Uasin Gishu Land Disputes           Tribunal & Another ex parte John Arusei Kipto &          13 Others (2014) e KLR;

c)         Republic v. Chairman Makuyu Land Disputes & 2          others Ex parte Betha Wanjiru Mungai (2015) e           KLR.

17.       The common thread in the above cases is that the Land        Disputes Tribunals did not have jurisdiction to determine        issues of ownership of land.

18.       Arguing that the applicant has established a prima facie       case with probability of success, Mr. Njomo urged the court            to allow the application as prayed.

Analysis and determination

19.       This being an application for issuance of temporary   injunction, to be granted the orders sought, the applicant             must satisfy the conditions set in the case of Giella VS       Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd 1973  E.A 358which are:-

1.           He has a prima facie case with a probability of                  success at the trial.

2.           Demonstrate that unless the orders sought are                  granted he might otherwise suffer irreparable                               injury which would otherwise not be adequately               compensated by an award of damages.

3.           If in doubt, the Court will determine the application                    on a balance of convenience.

20.       What is a prima facie case was defined by the Court of        Appeal in the case of Mrao VS First American Bank of         Kenya Ltd Civil Appeal NO. 39 of2002 (2003 e K.L.R) in            the following words:-

“A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a genuine and arguable case.  It is a case which, on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter”.

21.       A temporary injunction being an equitable remedy, it will not          be granted where it can be demonstrated that the applicant        has not approached the Court with clean hands.   Further,    as was held in the case of Films Rover International 1980    3 ALL. E.R  772,  the Court considering such an application          should take the course that appears to carry the lower risk     of injustice.

22.       In applying the above principles to the instant case, from      the documents annexed to the applicant’s supporting       affidavit it is clear that the applicant lost his interest in the   suit property through a legal process.

23.       Whilst it’s true that the Land Disputes Tribunals established            under the LDTA lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes concerning title to land or ownership of land, I am             unable to agree with the applicant that the mere fact that         the Tribunal entertained the dispute preferred before it,        when it had no jurisdiction to do so warrants issuance of       the orders sought in his favour. I say so, firstly, because the             LDTA provided a mechanism of dealing with orders            obtained through the proceedings instituted before the        Tribunal; Secondly, it is trite law that where a statute           establishes a dispute resolution procedure, then the     procedure must be strictly followed in resolving the dispute.            In this regard see the cases of East Africa PentecostalChurches Registered Trustees & 1754 others v Samwel  Muguna Henry & 4 others [2015] eKLR;Speaker of theNational Assembly V Karume (1992) and the case of      Francis Gitau Persimeri v. Alliance Party & 4 Others       (2012) eKLR; Republic v Susan Kihika & 2 others Ex            Parte George Mwaura Njenga [2014] eKLR.

24.       The evidence on record shows that the applicant preferred   an appeal before the defunct Land Disputes Tribunal which            appeal is still pending. It is my considered view that the       applicant ought to have pursued his rights through the appellate procedures contemplated under the Act and/or      filed judicial review proceedings.

25.       As things stand now, if this court were to accede to the       applicant plea, it would be tantamount to irregularly setting        aside the orders issued through a legally sanctioned process. It matters not that the orders are prima facie      irregular; the right process of the law must be invoked          before the orders can be lawfully set aside.

26.       As things stand now, the title held by the applicant has        been legally rendered inoperative. Until and unless the        order rendering it inoperative is reversed or set aside, that    order remains valid and an impediment to the recognition of        the title, if any, held by the applicant in respect of the suit    property. The title held by 1st respondent, if any, was           obtained through a valid court process. The court confirms   as much through a ruling delivered on 4th November,   2015  by the Principal Magistrate Kangema Law Courts in   LDT Case No. 29 of 2008 where it           was held:-

“In this case there is no dispute that the award by            Kangema Land Disputes Tribunal was adopted as      judgment on 17th November, 2008. The judgment was     thereafter stayed on 30th September, 2009 pending the       outcome of the appeal before the Provincial Land            Disputes Tribunal.

It is clear from the replying affidavit filed by the plaintiff/respondent that she was issued with a title             deed on 20/7/2009 before the order of stay was     granted. The land in issue had therefore changed            hands at the time the stay was granted that is from the    defendant/applicant to the plaintiff/respondent. The      plaintiff/respondent sold the land to a third party             namely Peter Kamau Githaiga and a title deed was           issued on 29/12/2014 to him….the case was finalized         on 17th November 2008 when the court adopted the    award as a judgment of the court.

There is no pending suit between the defendant and        the plaintiff before this court. It is therefore not clear         which case the defendant/applicant is referring to in        prayer (c) of his application…”

27.       Concerning the prayer for stay of the proceedings in             Murang’a CMCC No.10 of 2015, the applicant not being a      party to those proceedings, cannot be heard to say that he    has interest in those proceedings. If indeed he has an         interest in those proceedings he ought to have applied to      be enjoined in those proceedings.

28.       With regard to the prayer for stay of the proceedings at        Kangema PMCC LDT Case No.29 of 2008, it is clear that         there are no pending proceedings in that case that can          form the basis of award of such a prayer.

29.       On whether this court should stay the proceedings pending at the defunct Land Disputes Appeal tribunal, I find and          hold that no case has been made for issuance of that order.

30.       To successfully impugn the title held by the 2nd respondent,             the applicant should have, by way of evidence,         demonstrated that the 2nd respondent was aware of the        plaintiff’s interest in the suit property at the time he      obtained title thereto. In this regard see Sections 25 and      26 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 which provides as       follows:

“25. (1) The rights of a proprietor, whether acquired on first registration or subsequently for valuable             consideration or by an order of court, shall not be            liable to be defeated except as provided in this Act, and          shall be held by the proprietor, together with all   privileges and appurtenances belonging thereto, free   from all other interests and claims whatsoever, but           subject—

(a) to the leases, charges and other encumbrances and     to the conditions and restrictions, if any, shown in the   register; and

(b) to such liabilities, rights and interests as affect the       same and are declared by section 28 not to require            noting on the register, unless the contrary is expressed     in the register.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to relieve a          proprietor from any duty or obligation to which the        person is subject to as a trustee.

26. (1) The certificate of title issued by the Registrar        upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon a           transfer or transmission by the proprietor shall be          taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the       person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute    and indefeasible owner, subject to the encumbrances,            easements,restrictions and conditions contained or           endorsed in the certificate, and the title of that         proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except—

(a) on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to          which the person is proved to be a party; or

(b) where the certificate of title has been acquired            illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt             scheme…”

Also see Section 80 of the Act which provides as follows:

“(1) Subject to subsection (2), the court may order the     rectification of the register by directing that any      registration be cancelled or amended if it is satisfied         that any registration was obtained, made or omitted by      fraud or mistake.

(2) The register shall not be rectified to affect the title      of a proprietor who is in possession and had acquired         the land, lease or charge for valuable consideration,         unless the proprietor had knowledge of the omission, fraud or mistake in consequence of which the       rectification is sought, or caused such omission, fraud          or mistake or substantially contributed to it by any act,    neglect or default.”

31.       There being no evidence capable of showing that the 2nd      respondent obtained title to the suit property by fraud or           misrepresentation or that his title was acquired illegally,       uprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme, I find and hold          that the plaintiff has not made a case for interference with   the title held by the 2nd respondent, at least at this stage of     the proceedings.

32        The upshot of the foregoing is that the motion herein has     no merit. I consequently dismiss it with costs to the 2nd respondent.

Dated, signed and delivered in open at Nyeri this 31st day of January, 2017.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Court clerk – Esther

Court was not sitting on 26th January, 2017.  Parties were informed verbally to come to court today.