Muiruri v Attorney General & 6 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3692 (KLR)

Prayer 4: That the Honourable court be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent, the Land Registrar, Kitui, to produce before court the orginal and/or certified copies of the Land Register (green card) in respect of Yatta B2/Kangonde/1842 and all its resultant subdivisions namely Yatta B2/Kangonde/3138/3139 and 3140 together with all supporting instruments, including but not limited to; a. The transfer instruments, if any, relating to Yatta b2/Kangonde/1842. b. All applications for consent of the Land Control Board c. Any mutation forms supporting the subdivisions; and d. Any other documents supporting entries made in the register. Prayer 5: That the replying afidavit annexed to the application be deemed as properly filed and served upon payment of the requisite court fees. Prayer 6: That costs of this application be in the cause. 3. The application is premised on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicant is a layperson who did not fully comprehend the legal implications or the stakes involved in the appeal; that he, being unrepresented previously, was unable to file any response or participate in the appeal; that significant new information regarding suspicious transfer and sub-division of Yatta B2/Kangonde/1842 into Yatta B2/Kangonde/3138, 3139 and 3140, has come to light, which the court must consider to prevent an illegality; that the production of the land register by the 3rd respondent together with the underlying transfer instruments and supporting documentation is necessary to enable this court to ascertain the root of title, validity of entries, and legality of the alleged transfers and sub-divisions afiecting the suit property; and finally that no prejudice will be sufiered by the appellant. 4. The application came with a supporting afidavit which mainly amplifies and echoes the grounds on which it is premised. 5. The appellant responded to the motion in two ways viz: Grounds of opposition dated 22/5/2026 and a replying afidavit of the same date. 6. The appellant pointed out that the 3rd respondent filed a notice to act in person. The notice is dated 13/6/2025 and he served it on 19/6/2025. His application is therefore said to be incompetent. Further, the prayer to arrest or stay judgement was said to lack a basis in law. It was said to be pre-emptive and speculative, thus further making it incompetent. The other prayers sought were also said to be incompetent. 7. The averments concerning the incompetence of the application are found both in the grounds of opposition and in the replying afidavit. The averments are more emphasized and/or elaborated in the replying afidavit. 8. On 26/5/2026, the matter came up in court and it was agreed that the court delivers its ruling without the parties filing submissions. 9. I have considered the application and the responses made. I have also had a look into the entire matter as filed generally. 10. In applications of this nature, courts usually require that exceptionally good reasons be profiered by the applicant in support of allowing the application. Such applicant is for instance supposed to show well that he will sufier irreparable prejudice. He is further required to file the application without delay. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3692/eng@2026-06-10 2

page 2 of 3

11. In this matter, the reasons given by the appellant are generally not sound. The applicant opted to represent himself. Nothing has been done behind his back concerning the manner the proceedings were conducted. There was parity of arms throughout but the applicant failed to seize the opportunity accorded to him. 12. What he wants the court to do now is to re-open this closed matter for re-hearing yet he had ample time and chance to participate in the proceedings. This is unacceptable. If allowed, the replying afidavit that the applicant wants the court to accept would require a response from the other parties. The documents he wants the Land’s Ofice to make available would also require a response and/or interrogation by the others. All this essentially means that the matter would have to start afresh. 13. Courts are usually very reluctant to allow these kinds of applications. Reasons of especially persuasive nature need to be profiered to incline the court towards allowing the application. In the matter on hand, the applicant has had all the opportunity to urge his case before the court at the time the others were doing so. It is now rather late in the day for him to seek to be allowed to present new material or evidence when all the others are waiting for is judgement. 14. The reasons given by the applicant are not good enough and this court is not persuaded that the application should be allowed. Allowing the application will cause more delay, increase costs, and cause undeserved hardship to the others. 15. The upshot, in light of the foregoing, is that the application herein is found unmeritorious. It is hereby dismissed with costs. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KITUI THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. A. KANIARU JUDGE- ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT, KITUI In the presence of, Mwara G. for Appellant AG (absent) for 1st, 2nd, 3rd Respondent Njoroge (absent) for Applicant/4th Respondent in application dated 12/5/2026 Mboloi (absent) for 5th, 6th & 7th Respondents Court Assistant - Musyoki https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3692/eng@2026-06-10 3

page 3 of 3