[2020] KEELC 1268 (KLR)
The court found that the inhibition registered against Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 was initially ordered to preserve the subject matter of the suit. Since the suit had been finalized and judgment delivered in favour of the plaintiff, there was no longer any legal basis for the inhibition to remain. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 1268 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gerald Kajogo Iguna; Defendant: Muriungi Makembo Solomon
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 29 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Removal of Inhibition
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Removal of Inhibition, Land Registration, Execution of Judgment
- 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
Gerald Kajogo Iguna
Plaintiff
Muriungi Makembo Solomon
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Removal of Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inhibition registered against Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 should be cancelled or removed to allow the plaintiff to deal with the land.
- 2 Whether the application for removal of inhibition is merited following the judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the inhibition registered against Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 was initially ordered to preserve the subject matter of the suit. Since the suit had been finalized and judgment delivered in favour of the plaintiff, there was no longer any legal basis for the inhibition to remain. The continued existence of the inhibition would unjustly prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the judgment. The court therefore allowed the application and ordered the removal of the inhibition to facilitate the implementation of its judgment.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The inhibition entered by the honourable court in respect to Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 is cancelled and/or removed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 29 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 51 OF 2015
GERALD KAJOGO IGUNA...........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MURIUNGI MAKEMBO SOLOMON.......................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 9th June, 2020 and seeks the following orders:
1. That the inhibition entered by the honourable court in respect to Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 be cancelled and/or removed.
2. Costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application has the following grounds:
a) That an inhibition was registered against the title to Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 is the cause of this suit.
b) That the said parcel of land was awarded to the plaintiff upon judgment.
c) That since then the inhibition has not been removed.
d) That the plaintiff cannot deal with the land unless the inhibition is removed.
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of David Maitai Rimita, the applicant’s advocate which states:
I, David Maitai Rimita an Advocate of P. O. Box 3151-60200 Meru in the Republic of Kenya, do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and all other subordinate courts hence competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That an inhibition was ordered registered on Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi ‘A’/527 on 14th July, 2015 and confirmed on 8th March, 2017 in cause of this suit (Annexed is a copy of the initial order marked “DMR1”).
3. That the suit was finalized and Land Reference No. Tharaka/Nkondi/ ‘A’/527 was awarded to plaintiff/applicant vide a judgment dated 14th day of November, 2018.
4. That the plaintiff/applicant cannot be able to deal with the land unless the inhibition is removed and/or lifted.
5. That the intervention of this court is necessary.
6. That the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
4. M/s Otieno, the applicant’s advocate told the court that the respondent’s advocate had been properly served but was not in court. She told the court that the intention of the application was to facilitate the implementation of this court’s judgment. She urged the court to allow the application.
5. I do allow the application.
6. Costs are awarded to the applicant.
Delivered in open Court at Chuka this 28th day of September, 2020 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
M/S Otieno for the Applicant
P. M. NJOROGE,
JUDGE.