Kaur v Suri (Environment and Land Case 738 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6029 (KLR)

3. The defendant/applicant deposed that the continued delay in concluding this exercise has a liability on him. Further, that the survey map presented to the Deputy Registrar fails to paint a true picture since there is a building which cuts across plot A and B, and that despite raising the same issue with the plaintifi/respondent, there has been no response. 4. Mr. Virinder Goswami, the learned counsel for the plaintifi/respondent filed a replying afidavit sworn on 3rd April, 2025 in response thereto. The learned counsel deposed that the plaintifi/respondent engaged M/s Prime & Marine Planning Consultants Limited to conduct the sub-division on their behalf, and that he is informed that the process is ongoing and in its final stages pending approval from the County Government of Nairobi and the Ministry of Lands. The learned counsel deposed that Anthony Mureithi of Prime & Marine Consultants Limited is unable to provide a specific timeline for completion of the subdivision process. 5. The learned counsel deposed that the plaintifi/respondent has no control over the processes of the County Government of Nairobi or the Ministry of Lands and as such, cannot expedite the time frame for completion of the subdivision process. 6. The defendant/applicant filed a further afidavit in response thereto sworn on 9th May, 2025. He deposed that there is no evidence of the steps taken by the Surveyor and the status of the subdivision exercise. He deposed that the plaintifi/respondent has sought to prolong the exercise and harass him. Further, that his request to be provided with the progress of the subdivision or to participate in the subdivision exercise have been frustrated. The defendant/applicant further deposed that as per the consent dated 4th March, 2014, the plaintifi/respondent was to efiect subdivision but she has been dragging her feet and continues to do so even after judgment has been delivered. 7. This court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. None of the parties filed their written submissions. Be that as it may, I have considered the application, and the replies thereof. The issue for determination is whether the application has merit. 8. Pursuant to the judgment delivered on 7th June, 2023, the court ordered that the suit property to be subdivided in accordance with the consent dated 4th March, 2014. The plaintifi was to be responsible for the payment of the professional fees in the subdivision exercise. In contending with the acts of the plaintifi/respondent, the defendant applicant averred that he complied with the orders of the court by paying the decretal sum and interest and executing the conveyance instrument. However, and based on the letters written requesting for an update, there has been no response. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintifi/respondent contended that Prime & Marine Planning Consultants Limited were conducting the subdivision and it is unknown when the said exercise would be completed as the plaintifi/respondent has no control of the afiairs of the County Government of Nairobi and the Ministry of Lands. In support thereof, the plaintifi/respondent attached a document confirming the progress of the subdivision. 10. While the court is alive to the fact that the plaintifi/respondent may not have control over the afiairs of the ofices responsible in ensuring that subdivision takes place, it would only be reasonable that the plaintifi/respondent gives a concrete position of the progress of the matter. One might easily suspect foul play on the part of the plaintifi/respondent for the simple reason that there is no concrete feedback or update from the company contracted to carry out the subdivision exercise. As is it, I would agree with the defendant/applicant that the period for carrying out subdivision is not infinite, and therefore the prolonged period deserves an explanation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6029/eng@2025-09-17 2

page 2 of 3

11. In the interest of justice, I find the notice of motion dated 19th November, 2023 to have merit. This court hereby directs as follows: i. The plaintifi/ respondent to give weekly updates of the subdivision exercise of Land Reference Number 4275/44 for the next four weeks. ii. The plaintifi/ respondent to follow up with the relevant bodies i.e. Ministry of Lands, Department of Survey and the County Government of Nairobi and file a report of the progress within 30 days from the date hereof. iii. Further mention on 23rd October, 2025 to confirm compliance with the above orders. iv. I make no orders as to costs. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025. HON. MBOGO C.G. JUDGE 17/09/2025. In the presence of: Mr. Benson Agunga - Court assistant Mr. Muturi for the Defendant Mr. Kamau holding brief for Mr. Goswami for the Plaintifi https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6029/eng@2025-09-17 3

page 3 of 3