[2021] KEELC 883 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 883 (KLR)

The court found that the inhibition order was originally sought and registered by the applicant in a previous suit, which was subsequently withdrawn. The current suit was filed and determined in favour of the applicant, and there was no opposition from the defendant to the application for lifting the inhibition. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 883 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Elizabeth Karimi Chabari; Defendant: Stella Cyprian Mwenda
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 146 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition Order
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Removal of Inhibition, Land Registration, Court Discretion, Withdrawal of Suit
Source Language
en
Land and Property Removal of Inhibition Land Registration Court Discretion Withdrawal of Suit

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Karimi Chabari

Plaintiff

Stella Cyprian Mwenda

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition Order

  1. 1 Whether the inhibition order on Parcel No. L.R Igoji/Kianjogu/66 should be lifted following withdrawal of the previous suit and judgment in favour of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act to remove the inhibition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the inhibition order was originally sought and registered by the applicant in a previous suit, which was subsequently withdrawn. The current suit was filed and determined in favour of the applicant, and there was no opposition from the defendant to the application for lifting the inhibition. The court was satisfied that the purpose of the inhibition had been served and, exercising its discretion under Section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act, allowed the application to lift the inhibition order on the subject parcel. The court also noted the absence of any evidence to the contrary or any objection from the respondent.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The inhibition order regarding Parcel No. L.R Igoji/Kianjogu/66 is hereby lifted.
  • No order as to costs.