|Miscellaneous Application 141 of 2010
|BERNARD KATHURI MBOKERA v SERAPHINO N. NGUGI & JOSPHAT NJAGI NGUNGI
|15 Dec 2011
|High Court at Embu
|Hedwig Imbosa Ong'udi
|BERNARD KATHURI MBOKERA v SERAPHINO N. NGUGI & Another  eKLR
|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
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 141 OF 2010
R U L I N G
The 2nd Respondent has filed a Replying Affidavit in which he explained that pursuant to the arbitration the land No.260 was to be sub-divided. They sold part of the land to pay for the exercise. One Patrick bought the 9 acres.
There is no land to give to the Applicant. Justice Warsame had on 13/4/2011 ordered that the chief and village elder appear before this court to explain what transpired. The chief John Mwaniki Makenge and then Assistant Chief Gerald Njiru Githuario has filed affidavits in which they confirm that the Applicant and 2nd Respondent both part of their land to Patrick Muriithi Njogu to get money for sub-division.
There is no reason why the 1st Respondent was before the court. The Applicant has no quarrel with the Arbitration which awarded him 9 acres out of land No.260. In that arbitration the 2nd Respondent was to get 8 acres. The Applicant correctly says the sub-division created 3 parcels i.e.
The Applicant has a title deed for No.2956 measuring 1.53 hectares. The 2nd Respondent too has a title for No.2955 measuring 1.53 hectares. The Applicant does not mention anything about No.2954. He wants the 2nd Respondent to transfer to him No.2955. Reason? That the 2nd Respondent only gave him 4 acres out of the 9 acres allotted to him.
They were both paid and a total of 9 acres, was given to PATRICK MURIITHI NJOGU who is registered as the proprietor of land No.2954. The 2nd Respondent has in his Replying affidavit stated that for the sale of the portions of the land he got shs.124,000/= while the Applicant got shs.155,000/=. The Applicant has not said anything this. All he wants is the land transferred to him.
The Applicant appears to know something about the sale of this land which he is not disclosing to court.
Infact there is no reason at all for his dragging the first Respondent to Court. I find no merit in the Chamber Summons dated 28/6/2010 which I dismiss with costs.