Case ID:172988

David Githumbi Thande v Ishmael Kagunyi Thande [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Environment and Land Case 21 of 2019

Parties:

David Githumbi Thande v Ishmael Kagunyi Thande

Date Delivered:

25 Mar 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Thika

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Lucy Nyambura Gacheru

Citation:

David Githumbi Thande v Ishmael Kagunyi Thande [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Mr. Wachira for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Mr. Omondi for the Defendant/Applicant

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Kiambu

Advocates:

Mr. Wachira for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Mr. Omondi for the Defendant/Applicant

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

Case Outcome:

Application dismissed

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT THIKA

ELC CASE NO. 21 OF 2019

DAVID GITHUMBI THANDE......................................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

VERSUS

ISHMAEL KAGUNYI THANDE.................................................DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT

RULING

The matter for determination is the Notice of Motion Application dated

15

th

February 2019

by the Defendant/ Applicant seeking for orders that;

1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to stay proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of Succession Cause Number 619 of 2008 –NAIROBI , In the matter of Estate of Peter Kariuki Thande.

2. That costs of this Application be provided for.

The Application is premised on the grounds that there exists a

Succession Cause

filed at the High Court in Nairobi in which the subject matter is the same as the instant suit. That the Plaintiff/ Respondent and the Defendant/ Applicant are brothers and parties to the Succession Cause

No.619 of 2008

as beneficiaries and both as Administrators and in which state they are fighting over the properties that form the subject matter herein. That issues of fact and law for determination in both suits now filed in separate Courts with the jurisdiction over the land matter are similar. That

Succession Cause No. 619 of 2008,

is scheduled for hearing on

25

th

February 2019,

and the Plaintiff/ Respondent is yet to file his Replying Affidavit and it all revolves around the land that both inherited from their father. That the instant suit is a duplication of the dispute being determined in the Succession Cause and it is prejudicial to the Defendant/ Applicant who has already filed an Application seeking to restrain the Plaintiff/ Respondent from transferring one parcel of land to himself fraudulently, while the land is for distribution to the Defendant. That the suit is an embarrassment to the integrity and honour of the Court process and the Plaintiff/Respondent should have awaited the determination of the Succession Cause.

Further that allowing the suit to proceed would be to entertain the danger of the two Courts with jurisdiction over the subject matter to reach diverse decision on the same issue considering that the Plaintiff/ Respondent is not the registered owner of the alleged properties cited in the Plaint and the cited properties are registered to

Peter Kariuki Thande,

their father who is deceased and only a Succession Cause has jurisdiction over such. Therefore, it is necessary that the instant suit is stayed awaiting the outcome of the Succession Cause.

In his Supporting Affidavit,

Ishmael Kagunyi Thande,

averred that on

21

st

January 2019

, in Succession Cause

No. 619 of 2008

, he filed an Application seeking to restrain the Plaintiff/ Respondent from fraudulently and illegally transferring one of the parcel of land to himself while the parcel of land currently belongs to the deceased. That the Application was placed before

Hon. Justice Ongeri

on

28

th

January 2019,

where the court gave directions and a hearing date was given which the Plaintiff/ Respondent was well aware and still instituted the instant suit. That in the Succession Cause, they seek proper distribution of the parcels of land forming part of the Estate of the Deceased. He also averred that he has been advised by his Advocate which advice he believes to be true that the only way to avoid an absurdity is to stay this suit until the Succession Cause is heard and determined.

The Application is opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent

David Githumbi Thande

via a Replying Affidavit dated

12

th

July 2019,

averred that the Application is devoid of merit and that Defendant/ Applicant together with one of their brother and Plaintiff are Administrators to the Estate of their father . That they have obtained a Confirmed Grant, with respect to the Estate of the Deceased and each beneficiaries share has been fully ascertained to the satisfaction of all entitled beneficiaries and there is no pending Application for rectification of the confirmed grant, revocation or annulment. That vide Chamber Summons dated

21

st

January 2019,

filed in the Succession Cause, the Defendant/ Applicant seeks order that a temporary Injunction restraining the registration of

L.R 11360/458

in the names of

David Githumbi Thande

be issued directing that the distribution of the Estate shall only be in accordance with the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant. Further that an order that the Defendant/ Applicant is the lawful beneficiary of

L.R 11360/458,

and entitled to be registered as the proprietor .

That the Application is a non starter and unprocedural as it is not properly before the Family Court as the same touches on matter of ownership and title to land. That he has filed a Replying Affidavit and Notice of Preliminary objection relating to the said Application. That as can be ascertained from the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, there is no land known as

L.R 11360/458,

that has been distributed by the Family Court and the Court thus cannot make orders relating to this land. That the said property came about after the consolidation of the Deceased two properties known as

L.R No. 11360/1 and L.R 11360/4,

and the subdivision of the emergent 75 acre block of land creating numerous and fragmented plots of various diverse sizes and the four (4) entitled beneficiaries agreed on who was to take what portion on the ground and ultimately all the Administrators including the Defendant/ Applicant executed a Deed of transfer for the said property in his favor. That the decision on as to who is entitled to what on the ground is a matter squarely falling on this Court, after taking the evidence by the parties . That his claim against the Defendant/ Applicant is under the tort of trespass for unauthorized encroachment upon the subject property, forcible detainment of the Deed Plan and raises issue of ownership and title, which matters cannot be litigated by the Family Court.

That there is no logical or legal basis to stay the hearing of the instant suit pending the hearing and determination of the Application in the Family Court. That the Defendant/ Applicant has no Defence to the instant suit and the instant Application is an attempt to procrastinate his right to an expeditious trial. That he is not obliged to await the outcome of the Application filed before the Family Court and especially in light of the fact that the same is misconceived, ill advised and has been filed before the wrong forum.It was his contention that the Defendant/ Applicant has not met the threshold for grant of orders of stay of proceedings. Further, that he has not demonstrated what prejudice he may suffer in the event that the suit is heard to its logical conclusion.

The Defendant/ Applicant filed a further Affidavit sworn on

31

st

July 2019,

and averred that his Application is merited as they cannot have 2 suits touching on the same subject matter running parallel to each other. That the property in question is registered in the name of the Deceased and therefore forms part of his estate and only the Succession Court can address the dispute in question. That the Plaintiff/Respondent should channel his objection on matters filed in the Family Court to the said Court. Further that L.R

11360/458

does not appear in the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant, which is a non-issue as the property is a creation arising out of subdivision of property known as

L.R 11360/1 and 111360/4

. That the dispute as to who inherits the property remain a preserve of the Family Court, and the Court would not address an issue that is active and pending before a different court. That the filing of the this suit while the Application was pending in the Family Court was an abuse of the Court process.

The Application was canvassed by way of written submission which this Court has carefully read and considered.

The issue for determination is

whether the Defendant/ Applicant is entitled to the orders sought.

The Applicant has sought for stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the

Succession Cause No. 619 of 2008

that is similar to the instant suit.

In deciding whether or not to grant stay of proceedings, the Court in the case of;

Global Tours & Travel limited (Nairobi) H.C. Winding up Cause No. 43 of 2000 quoted with approval in Kenya Wildlife service …Vs… Mutembei (2019) Eklr

, held that;

“The

court stated; As I understand the law whether or not I grant a stay of proceedings or further proceedings on a decree or order appealed from is a matter of Judicial Discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice. The sole question is whether it is in the interest to order a stay of proceedings, and if it is on what terms it should be granted.

In deciding whether to order a stay, a court should essentially way the pros and cons of granting or not granting the order, and in considering those matters it should bear in mind such factors as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of the intended appeal in the sense of not whether it will probably succeed or not or whether it is an arguable one.

The scarcity and optimum utilization of judicial time and whether the application has been brought expeditiously.”

The reasons as to why the Applicant is seeking the stay of the instant proceedings is because there is a pending Application before the Succession Court which is similar to the instant suit. It was the Applicant’s contention that there run a risk of two different Courts litigating over the same issues and in order to allow the Succession Court to hear and determine the matter, it is thus imperative that the Court stay the instant proceedings.

However, it is not in doubt that the Court in the said Succession cause has since rendered its Ruling and disallowed the said Application. The Court held that as there is a dispute before this Court in this matter over ownership and that it would allow the

Environmental & Land Court

to deal with the issue.

As the Applicant’s Application was hinged on the said Application, that has since been disallowed and therefore there are no two distinct suits over the same subject matter are pending, the Court finds and holds that there would be no reason to stay the instant proceedings. In exercising its discretion the Court does not find any merit in staying the instant proceedings as the substratum of the Application has collapsed and therefore it would not serve any interest.

Consequently, the Court finds and holds that the Application dated

15

th

February 2019,

is not merited and the same is dismissed with costs.

The suit will not be stayed. Let it proceed for hearing and be determined on merit.

It is s ordered.

Dated, signed and Delivered at Thika this 25

th

day of March 2021

L. GACHERU

JUDGE

25/3/2021

Court Assistant - Dominic

ORDER

In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the

COVID-19

Pandemic, and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on

15

th

March 2020

, this

Ruling

has been delivered to the parties online with their consents. They have waived compliance with

Order 21 rule 1

of the

Civil Procedure Rules

which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court.

With Consent of and virtual appearance via video conference – Microsoft Teams Platform

Mr. Wachira for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Mr. Omondi for the Defendant/Applicant

L. GACHERU

JUDGE

25/3/2021