The applicant seeks orders that this Honourable Court that this Honourable court be pleased to cancel and/or revoke any title deed issued to a third party (not identified squatters as per the plaintiffs list of Squatters dated 31st July, 2023) in respect of any portion of land on the suit premises, being Plot LR No. 397/1/MN (Original Nos. 181 and 187). CR No. 1940 and that in compliance with the Decree and/or orders made herein, there be a mandatory injunction directing the Plaintiffs to engage the Defendants and the Settlement Fund Board Trustees in securing loans for purposes of purchase of the Defendants' portions of land on the suit premises, being Plot LR No. 397/1/MN (Original Nos. 181 and 187), CRM). 1940. THAT costs of this application be borne by the Plaintiffs in any event.
The application is based on the following grounds that this suit was determined by the court on 14th March 2014 through a Decree of even date but on 24th April, 2019, the Decree was varied and/or reviewed putting in place certain conditions to be met and/or complied with in the execution of the Decree, including Sale of individual portions of land to all the occupants at market rates but did not include a condition that failure by any occupants of the portions of land to purchase would lead to sale of the said portions to third Parties, nor did it include eviction processes. The applicant asserts that in compliance with the aforementioned Court order, a Valuation report was prepared on 6th October 2021 indicating the amounts of money each portion of land would cost.
The applicant contends that some of the Squatters and/or Defendants herein managed to pay for their portions of land, while others paid partially, whose total number is 33 out of the 1,448 Squatters on the suit premises. Though the Decree and/or Order of 24th April, 2019 did not have a default clause whose consequence was to sell any portion of land in occupation of any squatter and who is unable to pay to a 3rd Party, nor had any consequence relating to eviction of such a Squatter from the suit premises, the Plaintiffs have proceeded to issue eviction notices to defaulting squatters and even going a step further to sell the defaulting squatters' portions of land to third Parties, an action which is unlawful and/or illegal and/or unprocedural and contrarp to the terms and conditions o/the Decree and/or Orders made herein.
The Defendants are not opposed to the execution of the decree and/or orders of 24th April, 2019 but the terms and conditions of the said Decree and/or orders should be complied with, which includes obtaining a loan from the Settlement Fund Board Trustees or a loan from a Financial Institution, a process which requires the input of both parties herein and full cooperation, free from any threats of eviction or disposal of individual portions of land to third Parties, hence the application herein. The 1st Defendants are now facing eviction due to the sale of their portions of land to third parties, contrary to the Decree and/or orders made herein, hence this application. According to the applicant, no prejudice shall be suffered by the Plaintiffs herein if the sought for orders herein are granted but a refusal of the same shall greatly prejudice the 1st Defendants who will lose their homes and/or residences which they have occupied for many years.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Tabual1 Sudi, the ISt Defendants herein who states that he is one of the Squatter listed as No. 341 in the list of Squatters herein. The facts of the affidavit reiterate the grounds of the application.
The application is opposed by the respondents through the affidavit of Tabitha Mwaniki the chief Executive and Secretary who states that of the Board of the 2nd respondent who states that the application is un-tanable and filed in bad faith and meant to delay the realization of the judgment.
The 2nd respondent states that the deponent of the Supporting Affidavit and the pleadings herein has not attached any authority to act for the 330 Defendants or the 1448 squatters in this matter and cannot purport to act for them without their express consent.
The Defendants were all along represented by their chosen representatives and it is clear peradventure that this application has been made fróm a point of misinformation, ignorance of the facts of this matter and in ignorance of all the Orders made in this matter after the Decree dated 24th April 2d19 was issued. That it is important to set the record straight and clarify to this court that the orders relating to the application dated 5th October, 2018 were issued by consent of the parties first on 12th February, 2019 then further orders issued on the 24th April, 2019 where all other prayers in thc application were granted save for prayers 2 and 10 which went for hearing culminating in the Ruling delivered on the 31st October, 2019.
The Application cannot be granted as prayed in view of the change of circumstances and all of these prayers have been overtaken by events incapable of being granted without infringing later orders made in this matter which the Applicant is fully aware of since they were present when the orders were issued and have derived benefits from the orders and the failure the Applicant's Advocate to peruse the file and acquaint themselves with the facts of this matter cannot be a basis for nullifying court orders yet they were fully aware of the same and all these subsequent orders issued after the Decree have not been vacated, set aside and or appealed and still stand as valid and enforceable.
The parcel being Plot No. L.R No.397/1/MN (Original Nos.181 & 187) CR No.1940 no longer exists and was extinguished upon subdivisions of the mother title. The prayer. 2, 3 and 4 are obsolete since 'the parcel no longer exists and the orders cannot be granted as prayed.
The Defendants/Applicants were given the Letter of Offer to purchase the parcels they occupy and these letters had the terms of the offer, the price including a stipulation of the time/ period within which the acceptance was to be communicated and payment to be done. The Offer Letter further stipulated the consequences in case any of the parties failed to accept the offer and comply with the terms therein. .
The 2 nd Plaintiff has advertised for sale through competitive bidding the suit properties several times through advertisement in the print media and the Applicant has had access to these advertisements and they are well within their knowledge and their attempt to stop the Plaintiffs/ Respondent from selling by competitive bidding was dismissed by this court vide the Ruling on 1st July, 2024 and this Order has not been reviewed, set aside and or Appealed by the Applicants. It should not be lost that this is a sale under court supervisions as per the several orders issued by this court and respondents invite the court to peruse the court record.
a) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 8 th March 2024, 21 st May 2022 and 13 th August 2024.
b) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 22nd October, 2024.
c) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 25th November, 2024.
d) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 20th March 2025
The 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent opposes the Application and specifically the grant of the temporary injunction and or Stay Orders of the Decree given that to date, not all squatters have collected their Offer of Letter to even know how much they are supposed to pay for their parcels and out of the 1394 who have collected their letters, not all of them made the payments or commitments AND having been accorded appropriate opportunity to buy their portions which they have declined with the consequence that this court issued further orders of execution on the 12th February, 2025, the Applicant should not be allowed to stop implementation of the court orders and Decree especially after new parties have submitted their bids and paid for their portions in a public competitive bidding exercise concluded on 2nd April, 2024 hence it will be unfair to issue blanket orders affecting all persons in the matter given the above circumstances.
The applicants have not stated the reason for them not taking up the letters of offer even after the court dismissed their applications on the 14th November, 2024 and paid for their plots. When the plots were advertised for sale through competitive bidding and they filed an application to stop the sale and the application was dismissed on 1st July, 2024 no appeal was made and equally no effort was made towards bidding and paying for their plots when the same were advertised for sale through competitive bidding. Despite being heavily invested in the suit property the applicants have not indicated reason for their reluctance to pay for their plots and obtaining title.
THAT the 2 nd Plaintiff has continued to sell the plots to the squatters and through competitive bidding and the results are that 81 plots have been fully paid for fetching Ksh 51,558,000 whereas the plots being paid for are 448 wherein Ksh 27,942.491 has been paid. The total amout of money paid is Ksh 79,500,491. The outstanding balance is Ksh 240,757,609.
THAT the 2nd Plaintiff has observed through its interaction with the Defendants that the reluctance by the Defendants/ Residents to pay for the plots they occupy and obtain ownership documents despite clear court orders is due the expectation that they may get the plots for free as the politicians have created that false and untenable assumption.
The applicants have not stated that the residents have no capacity to buy the parcels offered to them noting that the orders issued on 31st October, 2019 consent orders and the Defendant know 'their obligation and noting that most of them have heavily invested on the suit property, The Defendants who need financing are free to seek financing from any financier of their choice it was not the responsibility of the plaintiffs to secure financiers for the defendants. The wording of Paragraph 8 of the Court Order dated 31st October 2019 reads "8, THAT the individual occupants of the plots be given an offer to buy the portions they occupy at the value set by the County Vatuer and any person who is unable to pay cash for the property be offered an opportunity to apply for a loan from any of financial institution or the Land and Settlement Fund Board Trustee within the specified period of Sixty (60) days from the date of the Valuation report submitted to court.
The applicant filed a SUPPLEMENTARYAFFIDAVIT whrein Mr Tabu Ali Sudi, C/o the Chiefs office, Mtopanga within Mombasa County, a resident of Kwa-Bulo, Bamburi in the aforesaid Republic do hereby swear this affidavit and states that the court is not fuctus officio and that the applicant has locus standi. The applicant denies any intentions of delaying the realization of the judgment as the orders sought for herein are mainly to have the judgments executed within the terms and conditions of the orders made, which excludes the sale of the 1st Defendants' portions of land on the suit premises and their eviction, because that would be contrary to the final orders of the Court.
That even if the Court is inclined to accept the Plaintiffs 'averments herein on the issue of locus standi, (which is highly unlikely) it is obvious that the Court cannot wash away or invalidate his interest herein, which if considered and allowed by the Court, they will affect the other squatters or occupants of the suit premises who are unable to pay for their portions of land. The 2nd Plaintiff, through its Replying affidavit has not denied that the orders sought to be interpreted herein were not having any defaulting clause for any squatter or occupant incapable of paying for his or her portion of land be evicted from his or her portion and the same be sold to a third party. That as regards paragraphs 8 and 9 of the 2nd Plaintiff's
The applicant insists that there is no prejudice if their application herein is allowed as it seeks to enforce the judgments of the Court within the terms and conditions directed by the Court, which the Plaintiffs have admitted through their replies that the orders of the court did not permit them to sell portions of land on the suit premises to 3rd partes as the orders allow both parties to approach the Land and Settlement Fund Board Trustees or a financial institution for the purchase of the land on their behalf but the said orders do not provide for anv consequences thereafter.
Jimmy Waliaula, the County Attorney at the County Government of Mombasa states that the 3rd Defendant through the County Government of Mombasa is first and foremost concerned as to the nature at which the property is being disposed of. The Court of Appeal directed parties to seek an out of court settlement whereby a consent order was recorded on the 24th April 2019 in which it was agreed that the squatters should be given an opportunity to purchase the portions of the property they occupy. That the continued disposal of the suit property and/or subdivided plots if not stopped shall lock out most of the squatters and rendering them homeless and resettling them will be a challenge.
The squatters are residents of' Mombasa whom if evicted from the property shall pose challenge to not just the 3rd defendant but to the State Government and the general good. That this matter is of public interest and that is where the Defendant comes in such that it has the right to protect the interest of its residents. The suit property has several families residing on it and the families once displaced may not have an alternative place for shelter thus rendering them homeless. That from the foregoing above, apart from the suit property housing families, the suit property has learning institutions, religious institutions and medical institutions as such their evict-ion may pose challenges.
That to preserve and maintain the common good it is in the best interest of all the parties that the squatters currently in possession of the suit property be given priority to purchase and/or retain the parcel of land they are currently occupying to ensure a seamless process and avoid any tussles or possible hostility. The County Government of Mombasa is also aware that before the sale is conducted by the Plaintiffs it is important that the current status of the developments on the suit property first be regularized according to the Physical and Land Use Planning Act 2019 before further dealings over the suit property is allowed. The County Government of Mombasa made an effort to come in and ensure a win-win situation and had filed an application dated 28th October 2024 indicating to this court that she had an intention to purchase the property on behalf of the squatters, however due to some legislative challenges the property could not be acquired earlier. The third parties who have already purchased or purported to purchase will have an uphill task to evict the squatters who are already residing on the suit property. The Plaintiffs have not tendered any sale agreements and/or subsequent titles to indicate or prove that indeed third parties have purchased or are in possession of the suit property. The 3rd defendant therefore supports the lst Defendant's application dated 27th February 2026.
Prayers 2 and 3 of the notice of motion are spent as the same were to be issued pending the hearing of the application. I have considered the application and do find that the application dated 27th February 2026 is seeking a cancellation and revocation of any tittle deed issued to a 3rd party in respect of any portion of land on the suit premises being plot LR NO 397/1/MN (Original nos 181 and 187) CRNO 1940. The applicant further seeks an order that in compliance with the decree and or orders of the court made herein, there be a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to engage the 1st defendant and the settlement fund Board trustees in securing loans for the purposes of purchase of the 1st defendants portion of land on the premises being plot LR NO 397/I/MN. LR NO 397/1/MN (Original nos 181 and 187) CRNO 1940.
On revocation or cancellation of title of the third parties, I do find that the said third parties have not been named in this application and therefore cannot be punished unheard. I do dismiss this prayer. Moreover, this court cannot compel the parties herein to engage in negotiations thus directing the plaintiffs and the defendants to negotiate and agree.
On the issue of the engagement of the defendants with the settlement fund trustees, the court is functus officio having made a determination by consent that the defendants should be offered the opportunity to purchase the land and indeed the defendants are in the process of purchasing the land. The upshot of the above is that the application is found without basis and is dismissed with costs.
The application is based on the following grounds that this suit was determined by the court on 14th March 2014 through a Decree of even date but on 24th April, 2019, the Decree was varied and/or reviewed putting in place certain conditions to be met and/or complied with in the execution of the Decree, including Sale of individual portions of land to all the occupants at market rates but did not include a condition that failure by any occupants of the portions of land to purchase would lead to sale of the said portions to third Parties, nor did it include eviction processes. The applicant asserts that in compliance with the aforementioned Court order, a Valuation report was prepared on 6th October 2021 indicating the amounts of money each portion of land would cost.
The applicant contends that some of the Squatters and/or Defendants herein managed to pay for their portions of land, while others paid partially, whose total number is 33 out of the 1,448 Squatters on the suit premises. Though the Decree and/or Order of 24th April, 2019 did not have a default clause whose consequence was to sell any portion of land in occupation of any squatter and who is unable to pay to a 3rd Party, nor had any consequence relating to eviction of such a Squatter from the suit premises, the Plaintiffs have proceeded to issue eviction notices to defaulting squatters and even going a step further to sell the defaulting squatters' portions of land to third Parties, an action which is unlawful and/or illegal and/or unprocedural and contrarp to the terms and conditions o/the Decree and/or Orders made herein.
The Defendants are not opposed to the execution of the decree and/or orders of 24th April, 2019 but the terms and conditions of the said Decree and/or orders should be complied with, which includes obtaining a loan from the Settlement Fund Board Trustees or a loan from a Financial Institution, a process which requires the input of both parties herein and full cooperation, free from any threats of eviction or disposal of individual portions of land to third Parties, hence the application herein. The 1st Defendants are now facing eviction due to the sale of their portions of land to third parties, contrary to the Decree and/or orders made herein, hence this application. According to the applicant, no prejudice shall be suffered by the Plaintiffs herein if the sought for orders herein are granted but a refusal of the same shall greatly prejudice the 1st Defendants who will lose their homes and/or residences which they have occupied for many years.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Tabual1 Sudi, the ISt Defendants herein who states that he is one of the Squatter listed as No. 341 in the list of Squatters herein. The facts of the affidavit reiterate the grounds of the application.
The application is opposed by the respondents through the affidavit of Tabitha Mwaniki the chief Executive and Secretary who states that of the Board of the 2nd respondent who states that the application is un-tanable and filed in bad faith and meant to delay the realization of the judgment.
The 2nd respondent states that the deponent of the Supporting Affidavit and the pleadings herein has not attached any authority to act for the 330 Defendants or the 1448 squatters in this matter and cannot purport to act for them without their express consent.
The Defendants were all along represented by their chosen representatives and it is clear peradventure that this application has been made fróm a point of misinformation, ignorance of the facts of this matter and in ignorance of all the Orders made in this matter after the Decree dated 24th April 2d19 was issued. That it is important to set the record straight and clarify to this court that the orders relating to the application dated 5th October, 2018 were issued by consent of the parties first on 12th February, 2019 then further orders issued on the 24th April, 2019 where all other prayers in thc application were granted save for prayers 2 and 10 which went for hearing culminating in the Ruling delivered on the 31st October, 2019.
The Application cannot be granted as prayed in view of the change of circumstances and all of these prayers have been overtaken by events incapable of being granted without infringing later orders made in this matter which the Applicant is fully aware of since they were present when the orders were issued and have derived benefits from the orders and the failure the Applicant's Advocate to peruse the file and acquaint themselves with the facts of this matter cannot be a basis for nullifying court orders yet they were fully aware of the same and all these subsequent orders issued after the Decree have not been vacated, set aside and or appealed and still stand as valid and enforceable.
The parcel being Plot No. L.R No.397/1/MN (Original Nos.181 & 187) CR No.1940 no longer exists and was extinguished upon subdivisions of the mother title. The prayer. 2, 3 and 4 are obsolete since 'the parcel no longer exists and the orders cannot be granted as prayed.
The Defendants/Applicants were given the Letter of Offer to purchase the parcels they occupy and these letters had the terms of the offer, the price including a stipulation of the time/ period within which the acceptance was to be communicated and payment to be done. The Offer Letter further stipulated the consequences in case any of the parties failed to accept the offer and comply with the terms therein. .
The 2 nd Plaintiff has advertised for sale through competitive bidding the suit properties several times through advertisement in the print media and the Applicant has had access to these advertisements and they are well within their knowledge and their attempt to stop the Plaintiffs/ Respondent from selling by competitive bidding was dismissed by this court vide the Ruling on 1st July, 2024 and this Order has not been reviewed, set aside and or Appealed by the Applicants. It should not be lost that this is a sale under court supervisions as per the several orders issued by this court and respondents invite the court to peruse the court record.
a) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 8 th March 2024, 21 st May 2022 and 13 th August 2024.
b) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 22nd October, 2024.
c) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 25th November, 2024.
d) Advertisement on Standard Newspaper for 20th March 2025
The 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent opposes the Application and specifically the grant of the temporary injunction and or Stay Orders of the Decree given that to date, not all squatters have collected their Offer of Letter to even know how much they are supposed to pay for their parcels and out of the 1394 who have collected their letters, not all of them made the payments or commitments AND having been accorded appropriate opportunity to buy their portions which they have declined with the consequence that this court issued further orders of execution on the 12th February, 2025, the Applicant should not be allowed to stop implementation of the court orders and Decree especially after new parties have submitted their bids and paid for their portions in a public competitive bidding exercise concluded on 2nd April, 2024 hence it will be unfair to issue blanket orders affecting all persons in the matter given the above circumstances.
The applicants have not stated the reason for them not taking up the letters of offer even after the court dismissed their applications on the 14th November, 2024 and paid for their plots. When the plots were advertised for sale through competitive bidding and they filed an application to stop the sale and the application was dismissed on 1st July, 2024 no appeal was made and equally no effort was made towards bidding and paying for their plots when the same were advertised for sale through competitive bidding. Despite being heavily invested in the suit property the applicants have not indicated reason for their reluctance to pay for their plots and obtaining title.
THAT the 2 nd Plaintiff has continued to sell the plots to the squatters and through competitive bidding and the results are that 81 plots have been fully paid for fetching Ksh 51,558,000 whereas the plots being paid for are 448 wherein Ksh 27,942.491 has been paid. The total amout of money paid is Ksh 79,500,491. The outstanding balance is Ksh 240,757,609.
THAT the 2nd Plaintiff has observed through its interaction with the Defendants that the reluctance by the Defendants/ Residents to pay for the plots they occupy and obtain ownership documents despite clear court orders is due the expectation that they may get the plots for free as the politicians have created that false and untenable assumption.
The applicants have not stated that the residents have no capacity to buy the parcels offered to them noting that the orders issued on 31st October, 2019 consent orders and the Defendant know 'their obligation and noting that most of them have heavily invested on the suit property, The Defendants who need financing are free to seek financing from any financier of their choice it was not the responsibility of the plaintiffs to secure financiers for the defendants. The wording of Paragraph 8 of the Court Order dated 31st October 2019 reads "8, THAT the individual occupants of the plots be given an offer to buy the portions they occupy at the value set by the County Vatuer and any person who is unable to pay cash for the property be offered an opportunity to apply for a loan from any of financial institution or the Land and Settlement Fund Board Trustee within the specified period of Sixty (60) days from the date of the Valuation report submitted to court.
The applicant filed a SUPPLEMENTARYAFFIDAVIT whrein Mr Tabu Ali Sudi, C/o the Chiefs office, Mtopanga within Mombasa County, a resident of Kwa-Bulo, Bamburi in the aforesaid Republic do hereby swear this affidavit and states that the court is not fuctus officio and that the applicant has locus standi. The applicant denies any intentions of delaying the realization of the judgment as the orders sought for herein are mainly to have the judgments executed within the terms and conditions of the orders made, which excludes the sale of the 1st Defendants' portions of land on the suit premises and their eviction, because that would be contrary to the final orders of the Court.
That even if the Court is inclined to accept the Plaintiffs 'averments herein on the issue of locus standi, (which is highly unlikely) it is obvious that the Court cannot wash away or invalidate his interest herein, which if considered and allowed by the Court, they will affect the other squatters or occupants of the suit premises who are unable to pay for their portions of land. The 2nd Plaintiff, through its Replying affidavit has not denied that the orders sought to be interpreted herein were not having any defaulting clause for any squatter or occupant incapable of paying for his or her portion of land be evicted from his or her portion and the same be sold to a third party. That as regards paragraphs 8 and 9 of the 2nd Plaintiff's
The applicant insists that there is no prejudice if their application herein is allowed as it seeks to enforce the judgments of the Court within the terms and conditions directed by the Court, which the Plaintiffs have admitted through their replies that the orders of the court did not permit them to sell portions of land on the suit premises to 3rd partes as the orders allow both parties to approach the Land and Settlement Fund Board Trustees or a financial institution for the purchase of the land on their behalf but the said orders do not provide for anv consequences thereafter.
Jimmy Waliaula, the County Attorney at the County Government of Mombasa states that the 3rd Defendant through the County Government of Mombasa is first and foremost concerned as to the nature at which the property is being disposed of. The Court of Appeal directed parties to seek an out of court settlement whereby a consent order was recorded on the 24th April 2019 in which it was agreed that the squatters should be given an opportunity to purchase the portions of the property they occupy. That the continued disposal of the suit property and/or subdivided plots if not stopped shall lock out most of the squatters and rendering them homeless and resettling them will be a challenge.
The squatters are residents of' Mombasa whom if evicted from the property shall pose challenge to not just the 3rd defendant but to the State Government and the general good. That this matter is of public interest and that is where the Defendant comes in such that it has the right to protect the interest of its residents. The suit property has several families residing on it and the families once displaced may not have an alternative place for shelter thus rendering them homeless. That from the foregoing above, apart from the suit property housing families, the suit property has learning institutions, religious institutions and medical institutions as such their evict-ion may pose challenges.
That to preserve and maintain the common good it is in the best interest of all the parties that the squatters currently in possession of the suit property be given priority to purchase and/or retain the parcel of land they are currently occupying to ensure a seamless process and avoid any tussles or possible hostility. The County Government of Mombasa is also aware that before the sale is conducted by the Plaintiffs it is important that the current status of the developments on the suit property first be regularized according to the Physical and Land Use Planning Act 2019 before further dealings over the suit property is allowed. The County Government of Mombasa made an effort to come in and ensure a win-win situation and had filed an application dated 28th October 2024 indicating to this court that she had an intention to purchase the property on behalf of the squatters, however due to some legislative challenges the property could not be acquired earlier. The third parties who have already purchased or purported to purchase will have an uphill task to evict the squatters who are already residing on the suit property. The Plaintiffs have not tendered any sale agreements and/or subsequent titles to indicate or prove that indeed third parties have purchased or are in possession of the suit property. The 3rd defendant therefore supports the lst Defendant's application dated 27th February 2026.
Prayers 2 and 3 of the notice of motion are spent as the same were to be issued pending the hearing of the application. I have considered the application and do find that the application dated 27th February 2026 is seeking a cancellation and revocation of any tittle deed issued to a 3rd party in respect of any portion of land on the suit premises being plot LR NO 397/1/MN (Original nos 181 and 187) CRNO 1940. The applicant further seeks an order that in compliance with the decree and or orders of the court made herein, there be a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to engage the 1st defendant and the settlement fund Board trustees in securing loans for the purposes of purchase of the 1st defendants portion of land on the premises being plot LR NO 397/I/MN. LR NO 397/1/MN (Original nos 181 and 187) CRNO 1940.
On revocation or cancellation of title of the third parties, I do find that the said third parties have not been named in this application and therefore cannot be punished unheard. I do dismiss this prayer. Moreover, this court cannot compel the parties herein to engage in negotiations thus directing the plaintiffs and the defendants to negotiate and agree.
On the issue of the engagement of the defendants with the settlement fund trustees, the court is functus officio having made a determination by consent that the defendants should be offered the opportunity to purchase the land and indeed the defendants are in the process of purchasing the land. The upshot of the above is that the application is found without basis and is dismissed with costs.