Muchangi Nduati Ngingo t/a Muchangi Nduati & Company Advocates v Commissioner of Lands & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. Okong’o
Judgment Date
October 08, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Muchangi Nduati Ngingo t/a Muchangi Nduati & Company Advocates v Commissioner of Lands & 2 others [2020] eKLR, detailing critical legal insights and decisions pivotal to land law in Kenya.

Case Brief: Muchangi Nduati Ngingo t/a Muchangi Nduati & Company Advocates v Commissioner of Lands & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Muchangi Nduati Ngingo T/A Muchangi Nduati & Company Advocates v. The Commissioner of Lands, Mbo-i-Kamiti Farmers Co. Limited, Samia Properties Limited
- Case Number: ELC Suit No. 441 of 2009
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 8, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. Okong’o
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include:
1. Whether the 3rd defendant's application to set aside the judgment entered on September 27, 2018, should be granted based on claims of lack of service and representation.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order against the 3rd defendant based on the existing judgment and decree.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Muchangi Nduati Ngingo, initially brought the suit against the Commissioner of Lands (1st defendant). The plaint was amended to include Mbo-i-Kamiti Farmers Co. Limited (2nd defendant) and Samia Properties Limited (3rd defendant). The 1st and 2nd defendants did not file defences, while the 3rd defendant entered an appearance and filed a defence but later claimed ignorance of the proceedings. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on September 27, 2018, declaring the transfer of certain land titles by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant illegal and directing the issuance of new titles to the plaintiff.

Subsequently, the 3rd defendant filed an application on June 19, 2019, seeking to set aside the judgment, claiming it was unaware of the suit until June 14, 2019. The plaintiff opposed this application, asserting that the 3rd defendant was duly represented throughout the proceedings.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the plaintiff filing a suit against the 1st defendant, which was later amended to include the 2nd and 3rd defendants. After the judgment was delivered in favor of the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant sought to set aside the judgment, claiming lack of representation and knowledge of the proceedings. The plaintiff also filed an application for eviction based on the judgment. Both applications were heard together, and written submissions were filed by both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows for the setting aside of judgments entered in the absence of a party. The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in such matters.

- Case Law: The court referenced *Patriotic Guards Ltd. v James Kipchirchir Sambu* [2018] eKLR, which outlined that discretion must be exercised judiciously to avoid injustice. Additionally, *Shah v Mbogo* [1967] E.A 116 was cited, detailing the principles for setting aside ex parte judgments, focusing on avoiding hardship due to inadvertence or excusable mistakes.

- Application: The court found that the 3rd defendant had been adequately represented by its advocates throughout the proceedings and had not provided sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the judgment. The 3rd defendant's claim of ignorance was dismissed due to contradictory evidence indicating prior knowledge of the suit. Regarding the plaintiff's application for eviction, the court noted that the judgment did not include an eviction order, thus the application was also dismissed.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed both the 3rd defendant's application to set aside the judgment and the plaintiff's application for eviction. The court found no merit in either application, concluding that the 3rd defendant had the opportunity to defend itself and that the plaintiff's request for eviction was not supported by the existing judgment.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court ruled against both the 3rd defendant's application to set aside the judgment and the plaintiff's application for eviction. The decision underscores the importance of proper representation in legal proceedings and clarifies that judgments must be explicitly stated in terms of enforcement actions such as eviction. The case highlights the court's commitment to ensuring justice is served while adhering to procedural rules.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Muchangi-Nduati-Ngingo-t-a-Muchangi-Nduati--Company-Advocates-v-Commissioner-of-Lands--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2109_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries