Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Case 68 of 1992 |
---|---|
Parties: | THOMAS GITONGA M’RUKUNGA v STEPHEN NGIRI,LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER & LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER |
Date Delivered: | 13 Apr 2011 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | High Court at Meru |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | Mary Muhanji Kasango |
Citation: | THOMAS GITONGA M’RUKUNGA v STEPHEN NGIRI & 2 others [2011] 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 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
RULING
Thomas Gitonga M’Rukunga the plaintiff herein sought by this action a declaration that the defendants Stephen Ngiri and the land adjudication officer had by collusion taken his 10 points from parcel number Maua/Amwathi/3136 and further sought a declaration that the same was given to the 1st defendant and included in the 1st defendant’s parcel number 5368. This court by its judgment delivered on 19th November 2010 found that the plaintiff had not proved his case on a balance of probability. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed. The plaintiff was aggrieved by that judgment and has filed a Notice of Appeal dated 22nd November 2010. Now the plaintiff seeks orders of inhibition to issue over parcel Maua/Amwathi/5368 until the final determination of the intended appeal. Learned counsel Mr. Kaumbi for the plaintiff submitted that inhibition would ensure the land in question is preserved so that the appeal would not be defeated by any other transfer of that land. The 1st defendant in the replying affidavit stated that he took possession of that land in 1987 and constructed a semi permanent kiosk and garage thereon. His learned counsel Mr. B.G. Kariuki stated in submissions that the 1st defendant has no intention to alienate that land. The application for inhibition was not opposed by the attorney general. The application for inhibition as correctly submitted by the plaintiff will ensure that the parcel of land is not transferred to other parties while the appeal is pending. It is therefore merited. I grant the following orders:-