[2020] KEELC 2977 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order. The applicant's claim that the defendant fraudulently registered the suit land in his name raised a prima facie case warranting preservation of the property. The court held that the technical objections raised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 2977 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Andera Omanyo Ekulo; Defendant: Innocent Masiga Makokha
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 66 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
- Outcome
- Application allowed; inhibition order granted as prayed in prayer (2) with costs in the cause.
- Judges
- AA Omollo
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Fraudulent Registration, Land Title Disputes, Interlocutory Injunctions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andera Omanyo Ekulo
Plaintiff
Innocent Masiga Makokha
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of an inhibition order against the defendant regarding L.R No. SOUTH TESO/ANGOROMO/7713.
- 2 Whether the registration of the suit land in the defendant's name was fraudulent.
- 3 Whether the preservation of the suit property is necessary to prevent the suit from being rendered nugatory.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order. The applicant's claim that the defendant fraudulently registered the suit land in his name raised a prima facie case warranting preservation of the property. The court held that the technical objections raised by the respondent regarding the form of the application could be cured under Article 159(2) of the Constitution, emphasizing that substantive justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. The court concluded that issuing an inhibition order would not prejudice the respondent and was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the suit, ensuring that the outcome of the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; inhibition order granted as prayed in prayer (2) with costs in the cause.
Orders
- An order of inhibition is issued against the defendant restraining the transfer, sub-division, disposition or charging of L.R No. SOUTH TESO/ANGOROMO/7713 until the hearing and final determination of this suit.
- Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUSIA
CIVIL CASE NO. 66 OF 2019
ANDERA OMANYO EKULO ....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
INNOCENT MASIGA MAKOKHA .......................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. For determination is the notice of motion application dated 26th September 2019 brought under the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff/applicant prays for Orders that;
a) Spent
b) An order of inhibition be issued against the defendant in accordance with Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 restraining the transfer, sub-division, disposition or charging of L.R No. SOUTH TESO/ANGOROMO/7713 until the hearing and final determination of this suit.
c) Costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Andera Omanyo Ekulo the applicant. He deposed that he is a paternal uncle of the respondent. That the respondent’s father sold his share of ancestral land in Angolot and went and settled in Angorom. Mr. Andera continued that after the death of his brother, he supported the Respondent who later came to live with him because this was near his place of work at the customs.
3. The applicant deposed further that he allowed the respondent to build 3 rental rooms on the suit land. That the respondent requested him for the title deed under false pretense that he was to use the same as security to obtain a loan from family bank. Instead of using the title as security, the respondent went ahead and registered the title in his name. The suit is seeking the cancellation of the registration of the respondent.
4. The respondent filed grounds of opposition and replying affidavit to contest the orders. He deposed that the plaintiff sold to him the said parcel of land and he proceeded to annex a copy of the sale agreement executed between them. He denied that he got the land fraudulently. The respondent deposed that he cannot be injuncted from using his land. He urged the Court to dismiss the application with costs.
5. Ms Ogoti learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the purpose of seeking the inhibition is to preserve the subject matter so as not to render this suit nugatory. That the defendant will not be prejudiced if the orders are issued. In opposing the application, Mr. Okutta counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court cannot grant the reliefs sought under Order 40. That the respondent properly acquired the land from the applicant and so he should not be restrained from using the land.
6. The orders being sought are to restrain the defendant from transferring, sub-dividing, disposing or charging L.R No. South Teso/Angoromo/7713 until the hearing and final determination of the suit. The applicant is accusing the defendant of registering the title in his name fraudulently. The purpose of the order is to prevent the defendant from having the title to the suit land change hands and or change status. The applicant has not pleaded that he is stopping the defendant from physical use of the land.
7. The respondent submitted that the orders cannot issue in the manner they are couched. However, this is a technical issue which can be cured under Article 159(2) of the Constitution. The orders of inhibition sought in my view will not in any way prejudice the respondent. It is in the interest of justice that the title to the suit property be preserved. Therefore, I find merit in the motion and allow it in terms of prayer (2) with costs in the Cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at BUSIA this 29th day of April, 2020.
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE