PETER MUTUA NDETO AND 4 OTHERS v HANNAH MURUGI KARUGU [2011] KEHC 1527 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURTOF KENYA

AT NAKURU

CIVIL CASE NO 214 OF 2010

PETER  MUTUA NDETO AND 4 OTHERS….................................…PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

HANNAHMURUGI KARUGU ……….............................………..DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

The fiveplaintiffs namely, Peter Mutua Ndeto, Geoffrey Kamau Wanyoike, Jason Masimba, Peter   Kimani Waweru and Clement Wango, filed   this suit against   Hannah Murugi Karugu, on 23/7/09 seeking   a declaration order that they are entitled to the plot allotted to them; NYA/C1144/93/1, vacant possession , General   damages for trespass and a permanent injunction  restraining   the defendant   from interfering with the said   land . Filed contemporaneously  with the plaint was the Chamber Summons dated the same day, supported by the affidavitof Peter Kimani Waweru, who described himself   as an elder of the plaintiff. By that Chamber Summons,   the plaintiff   seeks a temporary   order of injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the suit land pending the hearing of the suit.  The suit was first filed in Nairobi as NRB HCC No.363/09 and transferred to Nakuru High Court. Peter Kimani  deponed that the parcel of land under plan NYA/C1114/93/1 was allotted to them   under   the letter of allotment dated 6/5/1999 (PKW I) and they paid all the monies required, on 25/6/1999 (PKW2). The applicants contend that the respondent entered   the land, put up temporary   structures and the plaintiff’s have  suffered irreparably,  since the members    have no place of  worship . Mr. Waweru , counsel for the applicants contended   that the plaintiffs have exhibited a survey report   which concludes that the   boundaries   are not  in   line with   the map.

The application was opposed and the defendant swore a replying affidavit dated23/2/09, to which she exhibited a title ( HMKI)   in her name , evidence that she is the absolute owner; that the land was   allocated to her late husband in 1963 and she has been in exclusive control and possession   since the   husbands demise; That   it is   not   until 1999 that the Chief of   Nyakio Location wrote to her alleging   that the land belonged to the   Government   and was available for   public   development (HMK2) .As a result of the said threat,    she filed Nyahururu  PMCC7/05, Hannah Murugi Karagu Vrs John Karanja Kahora., ( HMK3) seeking to have the chief restrained from interfering   with her quiet  occupation of the land. The said case is yet to be determined; that the District   Surveyor Nyandarua surveyed the land and indicated   that the 2 disputed acres here the respondent’s and directed that  the boundary  be fixed. It is the contention of the respondent   that the letter of allotment,  marked PKW1 is forgery as it is copied to Department heads in Thika District , not   Nyandarua County Counci and that the sums allegedly  paid to the Commissioner of Lands do not  add up as the receipt does not indicate in respect of which plots payment was made.

Having considered the pleadings and the counsel’s arguments, there is no doubt that the defendant is the registered owner of plot no Nyandarua/Njabini/2291. So far, there is no evidence to show that the land that  the applicants were allotted is the same as the plaintiffs’ land. In addition the surveyor’sletter exhibited did not indicate to whom the   plots belong.

I haveseen the documents exhibited by   the applicants in support of their application . The   letter of allotment is dated 6/5/1999. It is over 10 years   since the allotment . The question   is why have they not obtained a title since? On the letter of allotment , the allottees were given a condition to pay total of Ksh.5,986/=within 30 days, but they have annexed a receipt dated 25/6/1999, in which a sum of 25,986/= was allegedly   paid by applicants   to the Commissioner of Lands in respect   of some unnamed plot. The   question is, why would the applicants   pay what was not   demanded of them? Further the sums in the receipt differ from the total allegedly paid.  In addition  the letter of allotment   was copied to the Town Clerk Thika instead  of Nyandarua County Council.  With   all these glaring anormalies in the two   documents, the only conclusion   this court can arrive at is that they are   not genuine, but falsified documents.

Besides, it is doubtful  that the plaintiffs have the necessarylocus standi to bring this suit . They described themselves as pastor and Elder. It is   not clear who  the  pastor is but at least the deponent  of the affidavit described himself as  the Elder. What of the 2 other plaintiffs, are they busy bodies?   The 5th plaintiff being a church  , it would be expected that the trustees would bring the  suit  on behalf of the church members. It seems that the  plaintiffs are busy bodies and cannot avail themselves of the equitable remedies of injunction. For the reasons that the   plaintiff  is  the registered owner of plot 2291; that   the documents exhibited by the applicants are falsified and that the applicants are not   properly before this court,  I find   that the applicants have not made out a prima facie case with probability of success.

The plaintiffs have not been in possession since 1999 and will notsuffer any loss. The respondent   has been in occupation  since 1993 as per the title document   and I find that the balance of convenience tilts   in the respondent’s favour. The application is unmerited   and is dismissed. Costs will abide the   hearing   and determination of the suit.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 17th DAY OF JUNE 2011

R.P.V WENDOH

JUDGE

Present

Mr  Ndegwa Wahome forRespondent

CC: Kennedy Oguma