Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||prob & admin 79 of 00|
|Parties:||YOHANA MUINDI MUSEBE vs MERTON KISIANYANI MUINDI ) MOSES KHISA MUHINDI )|
|Date Delivered:||03 Jun 2004|
|Court:||High Court at Kitale|
|Citation:||YOHANA MUINDI MUSEBE vs MERTON KISIANYANI MUINDI ) MOSES KHISA MUHINDI ) eKLR|
|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|
YOHANA MUINDI MUSEBE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DECEASED.
MERTON KISIANYANI MUINDI )
MOSES KHISA MUHINDI ) :::::::::::::::::::: PETITIONERS.
R U L I N G.
The main suit in this matter was concluded on 19/11/2002 when the
High Court distributed the estate of the deceased one Yohana Muindi
Musembe in P & A No. 79/00.
There was no appeal against the Judgment. There hasn’t even been
any application for review of the said orders.
Two years down the line the beneficiaries have yet to subdivide the
said properly as ordered by the court.
The survey is said to have been stopped by some of the beneficiaries.
The applicants herein have now moved the court vide a chamber
summons dated 21/4/2004 which is filed under a certificate of urgency.
The petitioners are asking the court to issue an order restraining the
respondents from interfering with the applicant’s use and possession of (8)
eight acres on parcel No. 194 Kipsoen Settlement scheme pending and survey
by the District Surveyor.
They have not told the court if and when the said survey will be done.
They claim that the respondent have interfered in their use of the 8 acres.
I have heard both consents in their submissions in this matter. I have
also considered the contents of the affidavits for and against the
In my view, the matter before me is very straightforward indeed and
that is why this ruling will be very short.
It is not disputed that the land has not been surveyed. The 8 acres parcel
which the applicant want the respondents restrained from interfering in is
amorphous on the ground. It has not been surveyed; it is not beaconed and
so it doesn’t even have an LR number by which it can be identified.
Instead of bringing to court applications for restraining orders, the
applicants should sit down with the others and agree on how the survey
should be carried out. This will sort out their problems once and for all.
Let the parties execute the court judgment and live happily evenafter.
This application is not meritorious. The orders sought should not be
issued, as it will be difficult to comply with them on the ground. The court
does not give orders in vain.
For the aforegoing reasons, I dismiss the application dated
21/4/2004 with costs to the Respondents.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS ………………………… DAY OF JUNE, 2004 AT
KITALE IN PRESENCE OF ………………………………….