Julius Katana Kithi v Kazungu Fande George & 9 Others

d. That pending the hearing and determination of the application and the appeal the court be pleased to compel the 10th respondent to issue the appellant with his parcel number for the portion of the suit land where the appellant lives with his family members if the education process was not conducted with irregularities; e. That pending the hearing and determination of the application and the entire appeal the court do compel the 10th respondent to issue the appellant with all parcel numbers for the portions adjudicated within the suit property registered in the names of the 1 st to 5th the respondents and of their family members and their third parties (sic) and for the person's listed as Johnson Kombe Nzai, Kazungu Fande George, Osman Siddik Esak, Juma Masemo George, Kahindi Kazungu Fande, Peter Kyalo Wambua, Safari Makokoro George, Charo Makokoro George, Robert Kyalo Ngumu, Kalume Masemo George, Kenga Masemo Mohamed Ali, George, Titus John Mutiso Njoku Kiberya, Ndalana, Cecilia Akram Mzula Mbindyo, Simon Kamande Mwangi, Shuhe Gitau, Akram Mohamed Ali (Repeated)Titus Mutiso Ndalana (Repeated) Cecilia Nzula Mbindyo (repeated) while there was a court order; MLDELCCNOE040/26-RLG/DF-18.03.26/FH-14.04.26/LH-14.04.26/DR-09.06.26F. Page 2 of 5

page 2 of 5

f. That costs be in the cause. 2. The grounds of for the application are at its bottom. They are that the land was adjudicated into portions. The said portions were arbitrarily registered in the names of the first to the seventh respondents their family members and other that parties by Mr Ignatius Sembeya and the 10th respondent; that the actions of Mr Sembeya and the 10 th respondent were carried out notwithstanding that an injunctive order had been issued on the 27th day of April 2021 and served upon the 1 st to 10th respondents. Despite demands for parcel numbers from Mr Ignatius Zendaya and the 10th respondent, none had been supplied to the applicant. The applicant asserts that the parcel numbers could have helped him file objection cases with the Land Arbitration Committee at Kilifi. It is asserted by the applicant that the persons to whom the land was adjudicated are not entitled to it, and that the first second and sixth respondents have admitted in writing that the portions adjudicated in their favor do not belong to them. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant also dated 31 st October 2024 in which the grounds here in above set out have been elaborated in detail. 3. The application is opposed by the first second third and fourth respondents through their replying affidavit dated 2 nd December 2024 sworn by one Stephen Jumbale, advocate and the second one sworn by the second respondent on 2nd MLDELCCNOE040/26-RLG/DF-18.03.26/FH-14.04.26/LH-14.04.26/DR-09.06.26F. August 2025 on their behalf, and in Page 3 of 5

page 3 of 5

which they aver that all the prayers in the said application are untenable at the present stage of the case and ought to be declined. They urge that prayer number 1 of the application is seeking a setting aside of the court orders while an appeal has been filed against the same. It is stated that the prayer seeks that judgment be entered as prayed in the plaint even before the appeal has been heard and determined. The respondents also aver that prayer number 2 and 3 are misplaced because they raise a new issue that was not even placed before the primary suit for determination by the Magistrates Court and they therefore they cannot be granted at this stage. 4. The application was ordered to be disposed of by way of written submissions and the appellant filed submissions dated 3rd January 2025 which I have taken consideration off in the preparation of this ruling. 5. On a summary basis this court agrees with the respondents that prayer number 1 being that which seeks that the ruling being appealed be set aside cannot be granted because there simply would not be any appeal to deal with if that prayer was granted. The second limb of that prayer which seeks that judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent as per the plaint filed in the lower Court cannot be granted for obvious reasons too. 6. The second and third prayers appear to be seeking information from the 10th respondent which information would have enabled the MLDELCCNOE040/26-RLG/DF-18.03.26/FH-14.04.26/LH-14.04.26/DR-09.06.26F. Page 4 of 5

page 4 of 5

applicant to file land objection cases with the Land Adjudication Committee at Kilifi. It is the view of this court that an application for information is not one that should be entertained at the appellate level, but at the trial court level, if at all. It is for the applicant to approach their appropriate forum for those orders. 7. For the above reasons I find that the application dated 31 st October 2024 is lacking in merit and I hereby dismiss it with costs to the respondents. Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi on this 30th September 2026. MWANGI NJOROGE JUDGE, ELC MALINDI. MLDELCCNOE040/26-RLG/DF-18.03.26/FH-14.04.26/LH-14.04.26/DR-09.06.26F. Page 5 of 5

page 5 of 5