Kirongi v Maina & 3 others

and said that the plainti should nd an alternative residence since he had sold the suit property. She further stated that a search at the land registry conrmed that the 2nd defendant became the registered owner of the suit property on March 21, 2012. 3. The court in its judgment gave the following orders: i. The 2nd defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed with costs to the plainti. ii. A permanent injunction is granted restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from interfering with the plainti’s quiet possession of the parcel of land known as Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/11905. iii. The registration of the 2nd defendant as proprietor of the parcel of land known as Bahati/ Kabatini Block 1/11905 is hereby cancelled. iv. The Land Registrar Nakuru is hereby ordered to issue a title deed for the parcel of land known as Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/11905 in the joint names of the plainti and the 1st defendant. v. Costs of the suit are awarded to the plainti and shall be paid jointly and severally by the 1st and 2nd defendants. 4. In the instant application the plainti, in whose favour the judgment was given seeks therefore to have the land registered in her name and the 1st defendant’s name jointly so that order (iv) of the judgment above is met. She states that after the judgment was issued the 1st defendant frustrated her eorts to have the land registered jointly in both parties’ names as ordered by the judgment hence the application. 5. I nd the instant application an unnecessary one. The judgment clearly states at orders (iii) and (iv) what the Land Registrar ought to do. He ought to cancel the registration of the 2nd defendant and in lieu thereof register the plainti and the 1st defendant and joint owners. There is not a single clause that is ambiguous in those orders. The desire to have the 1st defendant execute the transfer forms in favour of the plainti is borne out of the erroneous belief that the land reverted to him entirely as proprietor after the court cancelled the 2nd defendant’s title. That is not the case, for there is clear material that the intent of the suit and nal judgment was not to have the land revert back to the 1st defendant, but to have the land registered jointly in the spouses names. The Land Registrar needs no other document save the order of the court to have the registration eected as ordered. 6. If the course the applicant has taken in this case was adopted in every case that comes before this court in which such ambiguous orders have been made, then much time may be wasted unnecessarily revisiting judgments. Neither the 1st defendant nor the Deputy Registrar needs take any further action in this matter. The power of the court to order the registration is sucient to enable the Land Registrar, subject to the payment of the normal registration fees and title issuance fees, to eect the court orders, failure to which he may be held in contempt of a very clear order. This court has not been informed by the applicant, and therefore declines to speculate on the issue, whether the decree has been presented to the Registrar for registration to enable issuance of fresh registration and title in lieu of the 2nd defendant’s cancelled registration. 7. Consequently, the application dated 19/5/2022 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022. MWANGI NJOROGE JUDGE, ELC, NAKURU https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/4858/eng@2022-09-22 2

page 2 of 2