[2019] KEELC 3541 (KLR)
The court found that the suit had been conclusively determined by a consent judgment, and all subsequent applications by the plaintiffs had been dismissed. As there was no pending matter and the inhibition orders were only meant to preserve the status quo pending determination, their continued existence was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3541 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniel Muthuri; Plaintiff: Benson Kinoti; Defendant: M’Ikiara Karigi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 77 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition Orders
- Outcome
- Application allowed; inhibitions to be lifted; costs to respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Land Title, Consent Judgment, Removal of Caveats
- 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
Daniel Muthuri
Plaintiff
Benson Kinoti
Plaintiff
M’Ikiara Karigi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inhibition orders placed on parcels Abothuguchi/Kithirune/3255, 3283, 3284 and 3285 should be lifted following the conclusion of the suit.
- 2 Whether the consent judgment and dismissal of subsequent applications justify removal of the inhibitions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit had been conclusively determined by a consent judgment, and all subsequent applications by the plaintiffs had been dismissed. As there was no pending matter and the inhibition orders were only meant to preserve the status quo pending determination, their continued existence was unjustified. The lack of opposition to the application further supported the defendant's position. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and ordered the removal of the inhibitions on the specified land parcels.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; inhibitions to be lifted; costs to respondents.
Orders
- The inhibitions lodged in respect of parcels Abothuguchi/Kithirune/3255, 3283, 3284 and 3285 are to be removed or lifted.
- Costs of the application to be borne by the respondents (plaintiffs).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 77 OF 2004
DANIEL MUTHURI..........................1ST PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
BENSON KINOTI...........................2ND PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
M’IKIARA KARIGI.................................. DEFENDNAT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. By a notice of motion filed on 16. 11. 2018, the applicant/defendant seeks the following orders:
(i) That this honourable court be pleased to order that the inhibitions lodged in respect of parcels of land no. Abothuguchi/Kithirune/3255, 3283, 3284 and 3285 be removed or lifted.
(ii) That the costs of this application be borne by the respondents.
2. The grounds in support of the application are;
(i) That the plaintiff/respondent in the course of the proceedings and in particular on 30th day of May 2017 lodged an inhibition against ABOTHUGUCHI/KITHIRUNE/3255, 3283, 3284 and 3285 the subject of this suit until the suit herein is heard and determined.
(ii) That there is nothing pending in view of the consent orders recorded in court on the 30th April, 2013 and registered in court on the 4th day of July 2013.
(iii) That the prayers sought are intended to effect the consent orders of 30th April, 2013 registered in court on the 4th day of July 2013.
(iv) That all subsequent applications to wit the notice of motion dated 5th December 2016, 30th May 2017 and 13th March 2018 have since been dismissed with costs to the defendant/applicant.
3. The applicant has also sworn a supporting affidavit filed on 16. 11. 2018.
4. No response was filed in opposition to the application.
5. I have perused the record and I find that indeed this is a concluded matter pursuant to the judgment given by the court on 4. 7.2013.
6. It is also on record that plaintiffs obtained orders on 14. 12. 2016 pursuant to an application dated 5. 12. 2016, whereby inhibition orders were placed on the aforementioned land parcels. That application has since been dismissed.
7. It follows that the orders given on 14. 12. 2016 should not remain in force.
8. I also note that no response was ever filed in respect of the application of 15. 12. 2018, hence this application is unopposed.
9. I find that the application dated 15. 11. 2018 is merited. The same is allowed and costs shall be borne by respondents (plaintiffs).
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Kithaka holding brief for Otieno for plaintiff
1st plaintiff
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE