Republic v Chief Magistrate Thika Law Courts & Thika Land Registrar Ex-Parte Daniel Kimani Ngumi & Ann Wangari Kinyanjui [2017] KEHC 5146 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  302 OF 2003

IN THE MATTER OF CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT AT THIKA CRIMINAL CASE NO.  3701 OF 2002.

REPUBLIC VS PAUL WAINAINA KAHIA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CHAPTER 26 LAWS OF KENYA

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC

EXPARTE: DANIEL KIMANI NGUMI ……………APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE

THIKA LAW COURTS……………............1ST RESPONDENT

THE THIKA LAND REGISTRAR…………2ND RESPONDENT

VERSUS

ANN WANGARI KINYANJUI …………..INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

1. These proceedings  were instituted  in court for the first time  on 23rd  March 2003   wherein the exparte  applicants  were  John Njuguna Ngumi and Daniel Kimani Ngumi (personal representative  of  the estate of Ngumi  Njuguna  (deceased). The applicants  sought from court and obtained leave  to apply for  Judicial Review  orders of certiorari   to bring  to the High Court   and  quash  the decision and orders of the Thika Principal Magistrate’s Court (Honourable Mrs  Rashid) in  Thika Chief  Magistrate’s  Case No.  3701  of 2002- Republic  vs Paul Wainaina  Kahia  to the extent  that the Land Registrar  Thika  to cancel  entries  over L.R. No.  Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/962.  On 26th March 2003, Honourable  Justice  G. Mbito( as he then was)  granted leave to  apply as prayed  and  directed the substantive  motion to be  filed within 21 days   from the  26th March  2003.

2. Further, the learned judge ordered that the leave granted do operate as a stay relating to the  matter and in particular  any dealings with LR Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/962; with costs  in the cause.

3. The impugned order was given on 14th March 2003 by Honourable B.  Rashid, Principal Magistrate   to the effect that: That the District land  Registrar  Thika  to cancel  title Nos Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/1041; Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/961; and  Kiganjo/Kiamwangi /962  obtained  fraudulently  and  the  name of  Ngumi  Njuguna to be  deleted  and revert  the same to  the original owners.

4. On  23rd  May  2003, the applicants  by an  application  dated  22nd  May 2003  filed  a chamber summons  praying  that the orders of leave  granted on  26th March  2003  by the duty judge  be  extended  for a further  21 days  and   the orders  be served  upon the  Land Registrar  Thika Lands Registry for action.

5. It  was  averred that the substantive  motion could not  have been filed  within 21 days  due to  confusion  which had  arisen  when  counsel for the applicants visited the lands office and  discovered  that the  documents  for the parcels  of land in the suit   were missing; that in a bid to  conceal  the material facts, the Land Registrar  had recorded  orders  issued in a criminal court  Thika Cr. 3701/2002  not in the parcels of land mentioned  but in  Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/1070  hence the  need to  have the  orders of  leave extended.

6. On  23rd  May  2003  Honourable  Justice Githinji ( as he then  was) granted  the orders  in the application dated  22nd May 2003, extending  the  time for  filing of   notice of motion  by a further  21 days.

7. Subsequent  to the above  enlarged  time of  21 days  from 23rd May 2003, on 10th June  2003,   the exparte  applicants  filed notice  of motion  seeking  for substantive orders, vide an  application dated  the same day 10th June  2003.

8. That application was served on 12th June  2008  upon the  District Land  Registrar, Thika and  the Attorney General on 13th June  2003  and  an affidavit  of service filed  to that effect  on 25th June  2003  sworn  by Tobias  B. Oduya.

9. The substantive motion   was heard  on 7th July  2003   by Honourable   Mbito J  ( as he then  was ) albeit  the record  is old and  partly  torn. The hearing took place in the presence  of the applicant’s  counsel Mr Njoroge  and Miss Okumu  for the Attorney General  who never  objected  to the application, and the  Honourable  judge(Mbito J)  granted the prayers  in the notice of  motion dated  10th June  2003  as prayed with no  orders as to costs.  The said order was extracted and signed by the Deputy Registrar on 10th July 2003.

10. Later on 2nd October 2003, a chamber summons dated 30th September 2003   was filed by one Anne Wangari  Kinyanjui  the administratix  of the estate  of  the late Mukono Ndurume  & Ngatu Ndurume  seeking to  be joined  as a party  in the suit   and that the  order granted  by Honourable Mbito  J on  21st March  2003  be discharged  on the grounds  that the intended interested party had  an interest  in the matter  hence the ruling  by the learned judge affected   her and   that  in any event, the orders of Mbito J granting  leave  and staying  proceedings  in the matter  on condition that the  application for  Judicial Review  is made  within 21 days from  the date of the  order  was  never complied   with as  the application  was made  after  21 days  hence the  leave as granted lapsed.

11. That application was opposed by the exparte applicants vide a replying affidavit   sworn by Daniel Kimani Ngumi on 27th November 2003.

12. The application dated  30th September  2003  came up  for hearing   on 3rd  March  2004  before  Ransley  J (as he then was) who  ordered that  the applicant  file a further   affidavit  and d the respondent  was at liberty   to reply.  The learned judge   stood over   the matter to 16th March 2004   for hearing.

13. On 16th March  2004  the matter came up for hearing before Ransley  J and the  applicant’s  counsel reported  that the applicant  has  not filed  a further  affidavit  as the  deponent  was not  available.  The learned judge adjourned the matter to 24th March 2004 at 9. 00a.m for hearing.

14. On 24th March  2004, the matter came  up for  hearing and the application  dated  30th September  2003  was argued  by Mr  Arwa for the applicant and Mr Njoroge for the respondent  opposed  the application  on the ground that the  applicant had not  seen the order of  Mbito J  which extended the earlier  order in July by  a further 21 days.

15. On the basis  of the brief  arguments  above as  recorded by Honourable  Justice  Ransley on  24th March 2004, the learned judge  ordered as follows:

“ The  order of  Mbito J  of  23rd  May  2003  extended the time  for filing  the  notice of motion as per prayer No. 2 of the  application of 23rd  March  2003.  Costs of today to respondent.

Signed

Ransley J”

16. Surprisingly, the parties on 27th August  2004  fixed the  same application dated  30th September  2003 for  hearing on  13th October  2004.

17. On 13th October  2004, the matter  came up for hearing  before Honourable  Justice  Makhandia  Ag J(as he then was)  and in the presence  of Mr Njoroge  counsel  for the applicant  and  no appearance for  the respondent, the learned judge Makhandia (as he then was) on his own motion recorded as follows:

“From the perusal of the record, this matter was finalized on the 7th July, 2003 when justice Mbito made an order quashing the decision of the Thika Principal Magistrate’s Court in Cr. Case No.  3701/2002 Republic vs Paul Wainaina Kahia.  That being the case, there is nothing left to which the applicant in the application dated 30th September 2003 can be enjoined to.  In any event, the applicant is not present in court nor her counsel.  Yet they are the ones who took the date and served the respondent with hearing notice.  I would in the circumstances dismiss with costs the application dated 30th September 2008.

Signed

Makhandia Ag J.”

18. This court  has found it necessary to outline  the history   of this matter  as per the manual  handwritten record  and  pleadings filed  therein, in order to  appreciate  what has had to transpire  since  2003  and why, for  the last  past  12  years  no action has taken  place until  11th August  2016  when Professor Kiama Wangai filed  notice of motion  dated  11th August  2016.

19. In the  notice of motion  dated  11th August  2016,  subject of this ruling, the applicant  Ann Wangari  Kinyanjui, who  was also the applicant  in the application  dated  30th September  2003  which Honourable Makhandia Ag J dismissed  on 13th October  2004 seeks  for the  following  orders:

1. That  the court be  pleased  to set aside  the orders  made by  Honourable  Justice  Makhandia  on 13th October  2004  and   reinstate  the interested  party’s application dated  30th September 2003.

2. That costs be provided for.

20. The application is predicated on the grounds that:

1. the Chief Magistrate’s court at Thika heard and determined Cr. Case No. 3701 of 2002 whereupon  Honourable Rashid  issued  certain  orders  that  relate  to parcels  of land on  the  14th March, 2003;

2. the exparte  applicant  herein instituted  Judicial Review  302  of 2003  in this court  on  22nd May 2003  and  was  granted leave to  commence  the same  and that the motion  was to be  filed within  21 days  from the 26th May 2003;

3. the notice  of motion  was filed  on 10th June  2003  after 21 days  had lapsed  without seeking  extension  of time;

4. the matter  was  mentioned on 1st July  2003   in the presence of  an advocate  holding  brief for P.K. Njoroge   for the exparte  applicant  and the same  was  scheduled  for a hearing  on the 7th July 2003.

5. on 7th July  2003  records  indicate  that the  matter  was  canvassed  on the 7th July  2003  whereupon  an objection   was raised  as to the  legality  of the notice  of motion by a Mrs Okumu nevertheless the Honourable Justice Mbito granted  orders  to the exparte  applicant.

6. on 9th July  2003  the advocates for  the exparte  applicants   drafted  the order which was checked  and  approved  on the same  date.

7. on  22nd July  2003  the Attorney General  filed a  notice of appointment  of advocates  the same  having  been drawn on 7th July  2003.

8. the interested party herein filed  a chamber summons  dated  30th September   2003  and  filed in court on  2nd October  2003   and  a further affidavit  on 16th March  2004.

9. the exparte  applicant filed a  replying  affidavit  and  grounds of  opposition  on 27th November  2003.

10. on  13th October  2004  the Honourable Justice  Makhandia dismissed the application dated  30th  September  2004  in the absence of the advocate  for the interested party.

11. it is a traversity of justice to condemn any persons unheard.

12. it is  in the interest of justice   that the  orders sought  herein be  granted  and  the application be heard on merit, further, the matter  involves  a very  emotive  issue  relating  to land.

21. The application  was further  supported by  the affidavit  of Ann Wangari  Kinyanjui  reiterating  the  grounds reproduced   herein  above  while annexing  proceedings  in Thika  Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court  Cr. Case  No. 3701 of  2002  wherein Paul Wainaina  Kahia   was  convicted  on his own  plea of guilty for the  offence of  fraudulently  obtaining  title  to land  and  selling it.  He  was fined  shs  30,000 on each of the 3  counts or  to serve  12 months  imprisonment  each on  each count  in default.  Prison sentences were to run concurrently.  This   was on 7th March 2003.  The applicant  also annexed  copies  of pleadings  and  orders issued  in this court  file as per the record which I have essentially reproduced in the historical  background.

22. The application, despite being served upon the exparte applicant/ respondent, was not responded to hence the court allowed the applicant to proceed exparte on 6th December 2016  after  satisfying itself that the  respondent Attorney General  and the  exparte  applicant were served  with  hearing  notice  for that  day.

23. In his  oral submissions, Professor  Wangai counsel  for the applicant  reiterated  the prayers  and  grounds  as supported by the applicant’s  affidavit and  the annextures, while  urging  the  court to  set aside  the order of  Makhandia J  made  on  13th October  2003  since the  substantive  motion  was  filed  out of time  and that hence  the learned  Justice  Makhandia  should have  heard the  application for  joinder and for  setting  aside  the  order of certiorari  interpartes,  since the effect  of quashing  the order of  14th March  2003  allowed the exparte applicant  to have  land  acquired  fraudulently vested in him and yet   the estate of the deceased  had never been  administered.  That there was miscommunication between the applicant and her counsel, causing   the delay.

Determination

24. I have carefully  considered the  applicant’s  application dated  11th August  2016, the grounds, the supporting affidavit, annextures  and  oral submissions  by  counsel Professor  Kiama  Wangai.

25. In my humble view, the only issue  for determination  is whether there is merit  in the  prayer  that this  court do set aside  orders of  13th  October 2004  made by Honourable  Makhandia  J and  reinstate  the  interested  party’s application dated  30th September  2003.

26. Albeit  the  application  was  brought under  Section 1A,1B and  3A  of the Civil Procedure  Act   and  the inherent  powers of the court, seriously speaking, even   assuming that the application  had merits, the delay of  12 years  between  13th October  2004  and  11th August  2016  which I find to be extremely excessive  has not been  explained by way  of affidavit  evidence.  That delay  alone is  inordinate  and  therefore  inexcusable  such that  it would  have been  pointless  to venture into the merits  of the application. In Utalii Transport Company Limited & 3 Others Vs NIC Bank Limited & Another [2014] e KLR it was held as follows:

“ Whereas there is  no precise  measure  of what  amounts  to inordinate  delay: and  whereas  what amounts to  inordinate  delay will differ from case to case depending  on the  circumstances  of each  case; the subject  matter of the case; the nature  of  the case; the explanation given  for the  delay; and so on  and  so forth;

Nevertheless, inordinate delay  should not be difficult  to ascertain  once it  occurs; the litmus  test being  that it should be an amount of delay which leads the court to  an inescapable  conclusion  that is it  inordinate  and therefore, inexcusable.  On  applying  court’s  mind  on the delay, caution is advised  for courts not to take  the word  “inordinate” in its  dictionary meaning, but  in the sense of  excessive  and  compared  to normality.”

27. The application  dated  30th September  2003  was  dismissed  on 13th October  2004  a year  later, which was about 12 years to the filing of this application.  Therefore, is that the kind of delay justified in the circumstances of the case?  The applicant  has not by way of affidavit  attempted  to explain  why there  was this kind  of inordinate  delay in bringing  this application  for reinstatement  of an application dismissed  nearly 12  years  ago.

28. The only attempt   was by the  advocate  Professor  Wangai in his  concluding  submission  that there  was delay because of a  miscommunication between the  applicant  and her then advocates.

29. In an application for reinstatement of the dismissed application or proceeding, time is of essence.  A party  who instructs  an advocate  to represent  them in a case  and then go to slumber  for  nearly  12 years  cannot be  excused  as it is  a party’s  case and not an advocate’s case hence  it is the duty  of a party to follow through  his or her  case with his or her  counsel  hence,  diligence  in the  prosecution of one’s  case is expected.

30. In the instant case, I find that there   is no explanation acceptable  to the court  to justify such inordinate  delay  in bringing  this application  for  reinstatement  of an application  dismissed on  13th October  2004.

31. No case is expected to remain archived in the court registry forever.  This file according to me, ought to have been  archived  away long ago.  Article  159(2) (b)  of the Constitution  abhors delay  and stipulates  that justice  shall not be  delayed.  There is no justice in such prolonged delay which has not been explained to the satisfaction of the court.  Not  even the  overriding  objective  of the law  under Sections  1and 1A of the Civil  Procedure  Act comes to  the aid  of the  applicant for  the overriding  objective of the law  is that  disputes  should be  resolved  expeditiously.  Delayed justice is denied justice.  The Supreme  Law  of the land abhors  delay in the dispensation  of justice  and therefore it  would not  be in the  interest of justice to revive  this matter which slept  on 13th October  2004.  As the old adage says, let sleeping dogs lie.

32. On the merits of the application, besides  the inordinate  unexplained  delay, the power  to reinstate  proceedings  or to set aside  an order  of the court is  a discretionary  power  which must  be  exercised  judiciously  and  on sound  principles  of law not   capriciously.  The applicant  must establish  that they indeed deserve the orders  sought  or that the order  sought is  available  to them  and that  therefore  notwithstanding  the inordinate  and unexplained  delay like in the instant  case, they have a strong  case  put  forward for consideration.

33. In the  instant case, it is claimed that the  matter relates to title to  land which was  obtained  fraudulently  by the exparte  applicant hence  to decline to grant  the orders  would be  sanctioning  a fraudulent  acquisition of land and  that in addition, the order  quashing  the decision  of the magistrate  as issued was  made in an application filed  out of the  21 days  stipulated  in the order  for leave  granted  on  26th March  2003.

34. This court  has  meticulously  combed  through this  file  and  I have  endeavoured  to reproduce  in this  ruling  with precision such that nearly  every action that took place has been captured. I have in the process established beyond doubt  that  albeit  the order of  26th March  2003   was to the effect  that the  substantive  motion be filed  within  21 days  from that date (26/3/2003);  and albeit  the substantive  motion  was not, indeed, filed  within  21 days  from 26th March  2003; Nonetheless, the exparte applicant vide a chamber  summons dated 22nd May 2003  filed  under certificate  of urgency  sought for  enlargement  (extension)  of time   within which  the  substantive  motion should  have been  filed  as per  leave  granted on  26th March  2003.  He gave the reasons for the delay and  on the same  day   23rd May 2003, the matter  was placed before  Honourable Githinji J  who considered  the application  for enlargement  of time and  granted it, enlarging  the time  for filing  of the substantive  motion by  a further 21 days  which 21 days  started  running  from 23rd  May 2003, ending  on 16th June  2003.  The substantive  motion  was  eventually filed on  10th June  2003  which  was  within  18 days   from  23rd May 2003.

35. It is  that notice of  motion which was filed before the end  period as  enlarged  by Githinji  J on  23rd  May 2003 that   was heard  and the learned  judge Mbito J  granted  the substantive  Judicial Review  order  of certiorari quashing  the decision  and orders  of the Thika  Principal Magistrate’s court ( Honourable  Rashid) made in  Thika CM  Cr. Case No.  3701/2002 Republic vs Paul Wainaina   Kahia, to the extent that the Land Registrar Thika do cancel entries over LR No.  Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/962.

36. It therefore  follows that  although the  applicant  by her application  dated  30th September  2003   was seeking  to be enjoined  to these proceedings  as an interested  party and  or seeking  to discharge  the  orders of  Mbito J  made on 21st March  2003, although there are no  such orders on record  made by Honourable Mbito J on  21st March  2003  as the first order  on  record  was  made on  26th March 2003  granting leave  to apply for Judicial Review  orders of  certiorari; and  such leave  to operate  as stay, there are valid orders of 23rd May  2003 made by Githinji J  extending the time for filing  of the substantive motion by a further  21 days.

37. Accordingly, not  only is the  applicant  guilty of laches but that  the application for  setting aside of the orders  of  13th October  2004  issued by Makhandia   J (as he then was) and  for reinstatement  of the application  dated  30th September  2003  is grossly misguided, misplaced and  frivolous, vexatious and  absolutely and  exceedingly unmerited.

38. There is  no challenge  to the orders  of Githinji  J made  on 23rd May 2003   enlarging  the time for filing  of the substantive motion  hence those  orders  as valid   as they are, they  stand undisturbed.

39. Further, the substantive notice of  motion  was filed within  the 21 days   enlarged  period by  the order of  23rd may  2003 hence  the Judicial  Review orders  were not  obtained  in an application  which  was  filed out of time  as the applicant  would  wish this court  to believe.

40. There is also  no appeal filed  challenging  the Judicial Review  orders of certiorari issued by Honourable Mbito J (as he then was) on the 7th July  2003  wherein the learned judge quashed   the decision and  further  orders of the  Thika Principal Magistrate’s  Court ( Honourable Rashid)  in Thika  CM’s Cr. Case  No. 3701/2002  Republic vs  Paul Wainaina  Kahia to  the extent  that the Land  Registrar  Thika do  cancel  entries  over LR No.  Kiganjo/Kiamwangi/962; which order was extracted and issued 10th July 2003.

41. In the end, I find the applicant’s  application  dated  11th August  2016  not merited  and  I proceed  to dismiss it without costs  as the respondent  and  exparte  applicant  did not  file any responses  to the application.

42. This file   to be marked closed and taken to the archives.

Dated, signed   and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of January 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Isaac Kinyanjui Njoroge (Family member of the disputants. Aged about 80 years old)

N/A for applicant/interested party

N/A for respondent

N/A for exparte applicant

CA: George