[2019] KEELC 3562 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3562 (KLR)

The court found that since the original suit (HCC 93/12) in which the prohibitory orders were issued had been dismissed, and a discharge order had already been made for one of the parcels, there was no longer any legal basis for the prohibitory orders to subsist on the remaining parcels. The applicant could not seek recourse in the dismissed suit, and the continued existence of the prohibitory orders was unjustified. Therefore, the application to lift the prohibitory orders was merited and allowed.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3562 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gituma Justus Mwiti (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Ikunyua Iringo); Respondent: M’Ikiao M’Iring'o; Respondent: County Government of Meru (formerly Municipal Council of Meru); Respondent: Nathaniel Kithinji; Respondent: The Meru Central Land Registrar; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 April 2019
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 19 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Prohibitory Orders
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Removal of Prohibitory Orders, Land Parcel Inhibition, Estate Administration, Land Registry Procedure
Source Language
English
Land and Property Removal of Prohibitory Orders Land Parcel Inhibition Estate Administration Land Registry Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gituma Justus Mwiti (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Ikunyua Iringo)

Applicant

M’Ikiao M’Iring'o

Respondent

County Government of Meru (formerly Municipal Council of Meru)

Respondent

Nathaniel Kithinji

Respondent

The Meru Central Land Registrar

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Prohibitory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders lifting prohibitory orders on specified land parcels.
  2. 2 Whether the application should have been filed in the original suit where the prohibitory orders were issued.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has any recourse in the original suit after its dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since the original suit (HCC 93/12) in which the prohibitory orders were issued had been dismissed, and a discharge order had already been made for one of the parcels, there was no longer any legal basis for the prohibitory orders to subsist on the remaining parcels. The applicant could not seek recourse in the dismissed suit, and the continued existence of the prohibitory orders was unjustified. Therefore, the application to lift the prohibitory orders was merited and allowed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Prohibitory orders on land parcels Nyaki/Mulathankari/767, 830, and 828 are lifted/removed.
  • No order as to costs.