Wanje v County Land Registrar Kilifi County & 10 others

2025 seeking to strike out the entire petition it was disclosed to this court that the application to grant in interim orders of injunction was declined by the court in Kili Civil Suit Number 469 of 2009 Tsuma Tezi Wanje vs Ibrahim Yusuf and others. It is further stated that these are discrepancies between the intentions evident in the application and its supporting adavit and the drafted petition in that the allegations made in the application and supporting adavit have not been incorporated into the draft amended petition; that notwithstanding the omission, it is stated by the deponent that the allegations had already been generally pleaded in the petition and more specically in paragraphs 12 and 21; that there is nothing new that needs to be added which is not already in the petition; that to allow the proposed amendment amount to defeating justice, by preventing the court from referring to the said information in its ruling. 4. The petitioner led submissions dated 31st October 2025 while the respondent relied on their replying adavit as led. The petitioner’s submissions urge that there is need to grant leave to amend the petition in order to bring the real questions in controversy between the parties which require the determination of this code. He claims there was a conspiracy by the respondent to deprive him of his legally owned land without application and without securing the Land Control Board consent as a required for all agricultural land in Kenya. Analysis and Determination 5. This court has examined the application the response and the submissions led. It is correct as the 11th respondent put it in his replying adavit that no additional information has been presented in the proposed amendments, and that on the contrary the proposed amendments seek to delete some information from the petition. An examination of paragraphs 10 and 11, which it is proposed to be deleted by way of amendment, shows that in those paragraphs the petitioner was admitting to having led Kili RMCC Number 469 of 2009 and that he obtained injunctive orders in that suit in respect of land known as Kili/ Mtwapa/ 663 and or any of its subdivisions Kili/Mtwapa/2027 and 2028. 6. This is not what was expected of the petitioner in view of the contents of his application in which he stated that additional information has come to his knowledge. This court would have been expecting that the petitioner would be adding such kind of information where there was none. Another example of information that the court would have expected to be added is contents elaborating on the respondent’s ling of an ancient case, PMCC 2303 of 2003 and its contents and eventual fate. 7. It appears that now that the original le for Kili Civil Suit Number 469 of 2009 has at the orders of this court been brought before this court and attached to the petition record, the applicant has made his application to amend and disown whatever he apparently did in that case. 8. The question that then arises is whether the deletions proposed by the petitioner are material. Deleting paragraphs which had been pleaded in a petition and in which the petitioner had confessed to have undertaken certain actions sounds suspect and in a petition that had been supported by a sworn verifying adavit it should not be allowed. I think he has to seek another way of dealing with those paragraphs and not amendment to delete them. This court is not convinced that the application dated 22nd October 2025 is made in good faith and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ONTHIS 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. MWANGI NJOROGE JUDGE, ELC, MALINDI. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18557/eng@2025-12-18 2

page 2 of 2