[2025] KEELC 3300 (KLR)
The court held that it was functus officio, having already granted the inhibition order for a period of one year, which disposed of the appeal. The application to extend the inhibition order could not be entertained as the court had no jurisdiction to re-open the matter. The applicant was found to be responsible for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3300 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Lucy Wangari Gichuru; Respondent: Bartholomew Gathuo Gichuru; Respondent: The Land Registrar Nyahururu; Respondent: Daniel Kiruri Kuruga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application to Extend Inhibition Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- JM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Matrimonial Property, Proprietary Rights, Functus Officio, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Lucy Wangari Gichuru
Applicant
Bartholomew Gathuo Gichuru
Respondent
The Land Registrar Nyahururu
Respondent
Daniel Kiruri Kuruga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application to Extend Inhibition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can extend an inhibition order after the appeal has been finalized and the court is functus officio.
- 2 Whether the applicant is to blame for the delay in prosecuting the lower court case.
- 3 Whether the application to extend the inhibition order is properly before this court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was functus officio, having already granted the inhibition order for a period of one year, which disposed of the appeal. The application to extend the inhibition order could not be entertained as the court had no jurisdiction to re-open the matter. The applicant was found to be responsible for not expediting the hearing in the lower court, knowing that the inhibition order was time-bound. Allowing the application would undermine the principle of finality in litigation. The proper forum for seeking further inhibition orders was the lower court where the substantive suit was pending.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The applicant's application dated 21/2/2025 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Gichuru v Gichuru & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3300 (KLR) (27 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3300 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua
Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023
JM Kamau, J
March 27, 2025
Between
Lucy Wangari Gichuru
Applicant
and
Bartholomew Gathuo Gichuru
1st Respondent
The Land Registrar Nyahururu
2nd Respondent
Daniel Kiruri Kuruga
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. In the Application dated 21/2/2023 the Applicant seeks for Orders that this court be pleased to extend the inhibition Order issued on 15/2/2024 on Title No. Nyandarua/Ol Joro Orok Salient/4360 preventing any dealings on the land pending the hearing and determination of Nyahururu Chief Magistrate Court ELC No. E008 of 2023. The grounds upon which the Application is predicated are that an inhibition Order had been issued on 15/2/2024 against the said Title whose tenure was one (1) year. The suit land is still the subject of the case at the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Nyahururu. This court directed that the aforesaid case be expeditiously prosecuted. That failure to determine the Chief Magistrate’s case is not attributable to the parties to the said suit and that the same is scheduled for hearing on the 2/4/2025. Finally, the Applicant fears that should the Orders not be extended this would cause irreparable harm to the Applicant for any transfer of the suit parcel of land would render the pending suit an exercise in futility. The failure to prosecute the case in the subordinate court is partially attributable to the ill health of the Applicant and she has attached copies of treatment records as proof of this.
2. In his Replying Affidavit, sworn on 10/3/2025, the 1st Respondent Batholomew Gathuo Gichuru responded that he is the registered proprietor of Nyandarua/Ol Joro Orok Salient /4360 which property does of form part of matrimonial property. He stated that the Affidavit in support of the Application sworn on 6/3/3025 was a forgery since the signature therein is not that of the Applicant who is a former wife of the 1st Respondent. In order to substantiate this, he has attached four (4) documents sampling the Applicant’s signature and confirms that her genuine signature is the one in the Originating Summons and on the Notice of Motion dated 1/10/2018. He claims that the Applicant is to blame for the delay in prosecuting the cause in the lower court since the last adjournment was occasioned by herself and the same is scheduled for hearing on 2/4/2025.
3. I allowed parties to argue the Application orally in court where the Applicant’s counsel opted to rely on the Applicant’s grounds on the face of the Application dated 21/2/2025 and the depositions in the attached Affidavit. On his part, Counsel for the 1st Respondent said that there is no pending Appeal, but only the pending suit in Nyahururu Chief Magistrate’s court and that it is their daughter who must have filed the Application. Ms. Mureithi for the 3rd Respondent associated herself with the submissions of Mr. Waiganjo for the 1st Defendant. She added that the current Application is a replica of an earlier one which was heard and fully determined on 15/2/2024 and the Orders granted therein have already expired. This Appeal was therefore finalized and the court is now functus officio. Interestingly, what the Applicant is seeking in the lower court is an inhibition and by coming to this court he is seeking for Orders that should first be grated or denied in the lower court before an Appeal is filed.
4. I do agree with Counsel for the Respondent that this court is now functus officio. The Orders sought were granted for one (1) year. That disposed of the Appeal herein and the same cannot be re-opened. If this were allowed then there would be no end to litigation. The Applicant is to blame for not expediting the hearing in the case in the lower Court since she all along knew that the tenure for the inhibition issued by this court was coming to an end on15/2/2025.
5. The Applicant’s Application dated 21/2/2025 is therefore dismissed with costs.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYANDARUA THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. MUGO KAMAUJUDGEIn the Presence of: -Court Assistant: Eric...........for the Applicant......... for the Respondents