The Court of Appeal has declined to suspend orders it issued in February requiring a land buying company to return a parcel worth Sh1.2 billion to an 80-year- old widow in Thika.
Judges Wanjiru Karanja, Martha Koome and Otieno Odek said any application for preservation of the orders it issued pending the hearing of an intended appeal to the Supreme Court should be made before the apex court.
In February, the appellate court ruled that whether there was misrepresentation or not, the transfer of the contentious 85.3 acres to Lang'ata Development Company was null and void.
In the matter, Mary Wairimu Dames decided to sell part of her Mary Dale farm, which was about 1,062 acres, in 1989.
The company’s directors identified the land and visited her house where it was agreed that the company would buy 672 acres for Sh23,500 per acre, translating to Sh15,792,000. The terms were captured in an agreement dated February 6, 1989.
But during the transfer, the measurements were drafted in hectares, which saw Dames lose 85.3 acres, now worth Sh1.2 billion.
In the February ruling, justices William Ouko, Patrick Kiage and Agnes Murgor said during the transfer, it was strange that the advocates and the surveyor managed to transfer an extra 85.3 acres without paying a cent for it.
The bench subsequently ordered Langata Development Company to return the land. Being aggrieved with the decision, the firm filed a notice seeking to be granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The firm also sought directions as to the period of time they should lodge the intended appeal and serve it to the Supreme Court.
The firm claimed that their intended appeal raised substantive questions of general public importance. It wanted the court to determine whether the Court of Appeal can ignore that the third parties now occupying the extra 85.3 acres are innocent purchasers.
But the appellate judges yesterday said that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to advise parties on the procedure to be followed to obtain title for unsurveyed land.
They said the Supreme Court is neither the Commissioner of Lands nor the Director of Survey or a consultant on property transactions.
The judges said the firm has never filed and lodged a notice of appeal either before the Supreme Court or the appellate court.
“In the absence of a notice of appeal on record, we find we have no jurisdiction to entertain the instant application for leave and certification to appeal to the Supreme Court. We have no option other than to down our tools and say no more in this matter,” they said.
“Having scrutinized the issues and questions posited by the firm, we find that no matter of general public importance has been identified that would justify us to grant leave and certification to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
