Asha Charik Hamad v Ismail Lunani Wambuto & 3 others [2013] KEHC 2097 (KLR)

Asha Charik Hamad v Ismail Lunani Wambuto & 3 others [2013] KEHC 2097 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA

HCCA  NO. 35 OF  1998

ASHA CHARIK HAMAD…………....……..……………………APPELLANT                    

VERSUS

ISMAIL LUNANI WAMBUTO............................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT

FRED N. OPILO  ............................................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT

AND

FATUM NJOHA HASAN............................................................. 1ST INTERESTED PARTY

MWANARABU SHISIA HAMISI................................................ 2ND INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

The appellant/applicant has filed an application brought under Section 3 , 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rule 10(2) and 13 of the  Rules. She is seeking the prayer below;

  1. THAT the application be certified as urgent and the same be heard on priority basis.
  1. THAT the Honorable court be pleased to enjoin one FRED N. OPILO to this suit  as the 2nd Respondent.
  1. THAT the  Honourable court be pleased to  cancel all title deeds of land parcel  known as  E. BUKUSU/S. KANDUYI/1087 and same be reverted back to its original number land parcel  known as  E. BUKUSU/S. KANDUYI/450.
  1. THAT the Honourable court  be pleased to  order the District Land Registrar (BUNGOMA COUNTY) to register the said whole land parcel known as  E. BUKUSU/S. KANDUYI/450 into my names (ASHA CHARIK HAMAD) unconditionally.
  1. THAT the Respondents, District Land Registrar Bungoma, their agents, their workers, their servants, themselves and any other person whosoever have claim over the subject matter be restrained by a temporary injunction from inter meddling, interfering, dealing and or tampering  with the title document of land parcel known  as  E. BUKUSU/S. KANDUYI/450  pending the hearing and determination of this application.
  1. THAT  the costs of this application  be provided for:-

The application is premised on the grounds on the face  of the application and her affidavit. Upon perusal of the court file, there was no  affidavit annexed to her application.  I have considered the grounds  raised.  This  was an appeal from the decision of Western Province  Land disputes Appeals Tribunal. Mr. Fred  N. Opilo sought to be joined in these proceedings,  was not a party in  the proceedings before the Western Province LDT Appeals Tribunal.  The Appeal  is already determined  in favour of the applicant.  Adding another  party will be re-opening  the appeal.  I will, on this basis  decline prayer 2 of the application.

Prayers 3 & 4 are related.  The  applicant obtained a decree in her favour. On 20th November 2001, the learned  Judge J.L. Osiemo  made a  ruling following up on  the earlier judgment on appeal that;

     “ the parties were advised to file suit in the ordinary courts. The upshot is that any transfer effected as  a result of the decisions of the  tribunal's transferring  land to  Amina Abdalla Hamisi is  hereby canceled and her    name  shall be removed  from the title.”

This order in my view gave the applicant land and what remained for her was to  execute it .  Like earlier observed by my Muchelule J  in his ruling in an application for  contempt, the applicant  has not made available  copies of searches from the Ministry  of Lands to ascertain the  true records as they are currently. However  if granting the order will assist  her in executing the earlier decision of the court then  I have no reason to refuse her. I therefore allow prayer 3 & 4.

Lastly on prayer 5, she has  requested for  an open-ended order of injunction. The court was informed the 1st Respondent is deceased.  She has not laid any basis on who  exactly  is interfering with the title documents or the mode of interference.  She has not  proved  principles for granting the injunction and to who it should be directed at. The  District Land Registrar  and Mr. Fred Opilo are not parties to this proceedings. It would be improper to issue orders against them without hearing their version in accordance with the rules of natural Justice. In the end, i decline this prayer.

Justice Osiemo advised the  applicant  to ventilate her claim through an ordinary suit. I will repeat the same.  If there are people interfering with her rights over  title  E. BUKUSU/S. KANDUYI/450, let her  bring fresh suits against the said persons and not further applications on this   appeal file which is already determined and should remain closed.  The end result is that  prayer 2 & 5 is  dismissed , prayer 3 & 4 is allowed.  I make no order on costs.

RULING DATED, SIGNED, READ and DELIVERED in open court this  17th    day of  September  2013.

A. OMOLLO

JUDGE

▲ To the top