REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 21 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE TO DEMOLISH

DEVELOPMENTS ON PLOT NO.702 AT GILGIL SITE AND SERVICE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF CANCELLATION OF OFFICIAL TRANSFER RECORDS REGARDING PROPERTY PLOT NO.702 GILGIL SITE AND SERVICE

BETWEEN

VISIONS OF GLORY CHURCH…………..…………APPLICANT

VERSUS

                       THE CLERK TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL                                                           

OF NAKURU..........................................................RESPONDENT

AND

FRANCIS KOGIE KIRAGU.......................INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

Introduction

1.  Pursuant to  the   leave granted  on 8th November, 2013 allowing the  subject, Visions  of  Glory Church, to  apply  for  orders of certiorari and prohibition; the  subject filed  the  notice of motion dated  17th May,  2013 seeking an order of certiorari to  bring to  this court and quash the   notice dated 21st  March, 2013  issued  by   the   respondent  (the    Clerk  to   the  County Council of Nakuru) and served upon the  subject on  29th April, 2013  requiring the subject to  demolish  the building and developments presently  standing  on   plot  No.702  Gilgil   Site and Service (hereinafter referred to  as "the suit property"). The subject also sought an order of prohibition to  prohibit the respondent  from deleting/ altering  the    records  of   the    suit property by removing its name therefrom.

Background and pleadings

2.  The  application is  premised on  the  grounds that the   notice dated 21st  March, 2013  requiring the   subject to  demolish its developments  on   the   suit  property is  not   justifiable as  the subject is the   lawful proprietor  of  the   suit property and that the  threat by the  respondent to delete its name from its records is unlawful.

3.   The   motion 1s  supported  by  the   affidavit  of  the   subject's pastor,  James  Gichuru Apollo, sworn  on   9th  May,   2013  in which it is deposed that sometime in  January 2012 the  subject mandated the   deponent to  purchase the   suit  property on  its behalf.  On 18th  January,  2012  the   deponent conducted a search  at  the  offices  of   the  respondent   (read  the    County Council  of   Nakuru)  concerning  the    ownership  of   the    suit property.  The search revealed that the   property was owned by Francis Kogie Kiragu. With   that information,  and based on the   certificate of  search issued to  him   by  the   officers of  the respondent confirming that  fact, the   subject entered into an agreement of sale with the  said Francis Kogie  Kiragu and paid him  the  agreed consideration of Kshs.280,000/=.

4.  Thereafter, the council records were altered to  reflect the subject as the  owner of the  suit property. Upon concluding the said transaction, the subject took possession of the property and began developing it while awaiting the processing of a title deed by the Commissioner of Lands.

5.  It is the  subject's case that in  March  2013, the  respondent started alleging that  the   suit  property belonged to  a Francis Kogie  Kiragu whose identity is different from the  one   it  dealt with.   On     the     basis   of    that   allegation/ contention,   the respondent ordered the   subject to demolish its assets on the suit property and threatened to  reverse the   records in  respect of the suit property from   the subject to  the said  Francis  Kogie Kiragu.

6.   In  opposition  to   the  application, the   legal   officer   of  the respondent,  Anthony Owour, swore the replying affidavit filed on  27th January, 2014 wherein he  admits that the respondent sent a letter to  the subject asking it  to  halt construction of structures on  the  suit property. He explains that the said letter was sent to the subject after it came to the attention of the respondent that the subject was not  the proprietor of the  suit property.

7.  Concerning the said letter, Mr.  Owour, contends that it was not the final decision of the respondent as the letter indicated that if the subject had any grievances against the notice he was free   to appeal. Further that,  if  the   applicant chose to  appeal against the   notice,  he  was to  present his   documents to  the council to  help it in  getting an amicable solution to  the dispute.

8. It is contended that, in breach of the terms of the impugned notice, the subject failed to make any   complaints against the notice and instead decided to  move  to  court seeking the orders cited herein above.

 9.   Since the  remedy of  judicial  review Is  concerned with the decision making process and not  the  merits of the decision, Mr. Owour argues that for  the current application to  succeed, the subject has to  show that the   decision or  action  complained  of was  tainted  with illegality, irrationality  and/ or   procedural impropriety.

10.  In  that regard, the  deponent contends that the subject has failed  to  show how  if  at all  there was   breach of  the  rules  of natural justice and/ or  any other legal  requirements that would have entitled it to seek an order of judicial review.

11.  With  regard to the  impugned notice, it is reiterated that the respondent had provided the  subject with  a mechanism which it  was supposed to  use if it  felt  aggrieved by  the notice. Since the subject failed   to  follow  the said mechanism  before moving to  court,  its decision to  move to  court before exhausting the dispute resolution mechanism  notified in  the  impugned  notice is said to  be  premature as the notice to  demolish was not  the final decision of the  council.

12.  In view of the foregoing, Mr.Owour urges the court to stay the matter in order to allow    the respondent's arbitration committee to  try and  resolve the   dispute  concerning the   suit property amicably.

Submissions

13.    On  8th November, 2013  when the   application came up for   hearing,  directions  were    given    to   the  effect    that  the application be  disposed off by way  of written submissions. Subsequently, the advocate for the  subject and that of the respondent   filed  submissions    which   I    have   read   and considered. The   interested party, even   though served did   not file any response j papers.

14.  In the submissions filed on  behalf of the  subject, a brief explanation  of  how   the   subject  gained  interest  in   the  suit property is given. In  this regard it is reiterated that the  subject bought the suit property from  its original owner, Francis  Kogie Kiragu (the  interested party herein); that the  parties to  the agreement for  the  sale of the  suit property (being the  subject's representative  and  the   property's previous    owner   (the interested   party    herein)   presented    themselves  to  the respondent  to  seek consent to  transfer the   property and that after their application for  consent to  transfer was  approved  by the  respondent, the  property was  transferred to  the  subject.  As proof  of   that   fact, the subject   explains   that   after   the transaction was completed it received a demand for  payment  of property rates in  respect of the  suit property.

15. The  foregoing notwithstanding,  on 21st  March, 2013 the respondent sent  the subject  the   impugned notice contesting the transaction   executed  between  itself  and  the    interested party.

16.   Contending that  the   person it  dealt with was  the   same person challenging the   transaction they had entered into, the subject  explains  that  after  the respondent  failed  to give a satisfactory explanation about the  circumstances leading to the issuance of  the   impugned notice the   subject filed  the   instant case  to  quash  the   notice and  prohibit  the   respondent  from acting on  it.

17.   Although the   respondent, filed  a reply to  the   application herein,  it   is   contended  that  both  the respondent  and  the interested  party,  even  though  served  with  the  application, failed to respondent to the  respondent's grievances.

 18.   On  behalf of the respondent, it is  reiterated that the subject's application does not  fall  within the  purview of judicial review. In this regard, it is  submitted that the subject, if aggrieved by  the   notice, ought to  have exhausted  the   dispute resolution mechanism provided in  that notice  before  moving  to court. Referring to  the decision in  Elizabeth  Nditi Njoroge vs. National Land  Commission (2013)  eKLR  where this  court declined  to  quash a notice on   the ground that  it  was not   a decision on   the   impugned titles; and  the   case of   Council Of Civil Service Unions and Others v.  Minister of  Civil Service ( 1984) 3 ALL ER  935 where Lord  Diplock suggested a three­fold  classification of  the  various grounds on  which an administrative decision can be  reviewed  by  a court, counsels for the   respondent maintains that  the subject  has  failed to show how,   if at all,   there was breach of  natural justice as is required by  law  when invoking the  court's judicial review jurisdiction.

19.    Referring  to   the   window  for    appeal   provided  in    the impugned notice, counsel urges this court to  stay this matter and allow the respondent's arbitration committee to  handle the matter as  it   is  the    body that  is· well  suited  to   handle  the dispute. In alternative to the foregoing, counsel urges the court  to dismiss the  application with costs for  having been filed prematurely.

20.     In a   rejoinder,  counsel   for    the subject   filed  the supplementary  submissions  dated  12th  February, 2014  and filed   on 13th   February, 2014.   In those submissions, it   is contended that the subject filed  the  application herein because the respondent had already made a  decision prejudicial to  it. Counsel  argues  that   through   the    impugned   notice,   the respondent had already reached a conclusion concerning the ownership of  the   suit property without giving the subject an opportunity to be  heard.

2l. On whether the  respondent had made a decision capable of forming the   basis of  the current  proceedings, by  advising the subject  to   appeal  against  the    decision  if   aggrieved,  it   is submitted that the respondent made it  clear that  a decision had already been made concerning the  ownership of the  suit property. Counsel maintained that the  respondent had made a decision because  an  appeal  can  only   be   lodged against  an existing decision.

22.   With regard  to the  authorities  cited 1n   support  of  the respondent's   case,  it  is  submitted  that   contrary  to    the respondent's   submissions,  the  authorities support    the subject's case in  that the   respondent's  decision to  the  effect that the suit property belonged to  the   interested  party in  the face    of   a  transfer   effected  between  the   subject   and   the interested  party and sanctioned  by  itself   was irrational. It is also submitted that there was procedural impropriety in  the procedure used by  the respondent to  arrive at the impugned decision.

Unlike   in    Elizabeth    Nditi   Njoroge   vs.     National    Land Commission  (20 13) eKLR where  a  decision  was  yet   to   be made,  counsel  maintained  that   1n   the    instant   case,  the respondent  unprocedurally made the   impugned decision and advised the subject to appeal if aggrieved.

Analysis and determination:

23.  It is not in dispute that the respondent made the impugned decision without giving the subject an opportunity to be  heard on   the  accusations  leveled against it.  Since a decision made without giving the  person to  be  affected by  it  an opportunity to defend  himself amounts  to   a  breach of  the rules of  natural justice which demands that every person must be  given a fair hearing, I hold   the v1ew that the such a breach would, in appropriate  cases  and  circumstances,  entitle  an  aggrieved party to apply for judicial review.

24.   I say in  the appropriate cases and circumstances because the  remedy of  judicial review is discretionary and  pegged on existence of  certain circumstances. For   instance,  the remedy can only  be  sought against public bodies for  acting in  excess  of their powers, unlawfully, unreasonably and/ or  in  breach of the rules of  natural  justice. See Kenya National Examination Council V. Republic; Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1996.

25.  Turning to the circumstances of this case, whereas the respondent made its initial decision without giving  the subject an opportunity to  be  heard, it  at the  same time communicated its intention to  provide the subject with an opportunity to  be heard before it made its final decision.

A literal construction of the impugned notice leads one to the conclusion that the impugned notice would only  form a ground of the  threatened action if, and only  if, the subject did  not  take the step notified therein, that is,  lodge an appeal against the notice. The notice provided as follows:-

"RE:   REMOVAL  OF  THE   STRUCTURE  CONSTRUCTED  ON PLOT  NO.702 RESIDENTIAL GILGIL  SITE AND SERVICE

"It has been established that you have constructed on the above said plot which is legally belonging to Mr.  Francis Kogie Kiragu of  ID  NO.124135 who has paid the necessary charges to  council and  also is  in  possession  of   all   the relevant documents related to the plot.

You are therefore required that:

(i)   You  remove the structure  illegally constructed  on the said  plot   whose   owner   has   raised   a complaint;

(ii)  Since the plot was first  allocated to Ujamaa General Stores, then  transferred to Mr. Peter Ndegwa Nderitu  ID  N0.23117674/65, who later sold it  to  Mr. Francis Kogie Kiragu on 28th June,  1996, nobody has lodged formal complaint to the council.

Therefore take  NOTICE that  unless you remove the said structure on the said plot within seven 7 days, from the date of  this letter, the council shall remove the structure at  your  own  risk  and  costs,  in  addition  to  the  legal measures that shall provide.

In   conclusion, you are advised to  appeal against the decision  in  case  you  are  aggrieved by   the  notice  on production of  the verifying documents in  your possession to prove ownership.

Anthony Owour

Ag. Legal Officer." (Emphasis supplied)

26.  Although in  the  circumstances of this case, the  decision  by the   respondent smirks of  bad   faith and unreasonableness  on the  part of respondent, I hold the view  that, the subject ought to  have exhausted the  avenue provided in  that notice  for protecting its rights to the suit property, rather than taking the long  and the   tedious court process. Be  that as it  may, having found that the   respondent had communicated a decision that threatened the subjects right to the suit  property without according it an opportunity to  defend itself, in  the  first instant, I hold  the view  that the subject had the  right to  choose whether to  lodge  the   appeal as advised in  the   notice or to  apply  for judicial  review of the said unprocedural decision, dubbed a notice.

27.  The   upshot of the foregoing is that  the subject has made up a case for issuance of an order of certiorari to bring to this court and to  quash  the decision of the respondent communicated in the impugned notice and for an order of  prohibition to  prohibit the respondent from deleting and/ or altering  the    records  of   the    suit  property by   removing the subjects name therefrom.

28.   As concerns the  costs of the  application, since  the  subject chose to  move  to  this court without exhausting the  dispute resolution mechanism  reserved in   the   impugned  notice, it  is not  entitled to an order for  costs.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 10th day of December, 2014

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr  Aim for  the  respondents

N/A  for  the Applicant

N/A  for  the Interested Party.

Emmanuel Maelo: Court Assistant

L N  WAITHAKA

JUDGE