[2017] KEELC 3459 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order to preserve the suit property, L.R. NO.KARINGANI/MARIANI/5452, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court reasoned that the order would not prejudice any party and was necessary to prevent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3459 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Humphrey Mbaabu Mbaka; Defendant: M’Ndereba M’Naichu; Defendant: The Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Meru South; Defendant: The Land Registrar Meru South; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 64 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Inhibition Orders, Fraudulent Registration, Ownership Disputes
- 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
Humphrey Mbaabu Mbaka
Plaintiff
M’Ndereba M’Naichu
Defendant
The Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Meru South
Defendant
The Land Registrar Meru South
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of inhibition should issue to restrain registration of dealings relating to L.R. NO.KARINGANI/MARIANI/5452 pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the actions of the defendants in registering the 1st defendant as owner of the disputed portion were unlawful or prejudicial to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an inhibition order to preserve the suit property, L.R. NO.KARINGANI/MARIANI/5452, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court reasoned that the order would not prejudice any party and was necessary to prevent further dealings that could defeat the plaintiff's interests before the substantive issues are resolved. The court exercised its discretion to confirm the inhibition order as sought in prayer 3 of the application, ensuring the status quo is maintained until the dispute is fully adjudicated.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Prayer 3 of the application for inhibition is confirmed, restraining registration of all dealings relating to L.R. NO.KARINGANI/MARIANI/5452 pending determination of the suit.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO. 64 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO.185 OF 2016
HUMPREY MBAABU MBAKA……………………………..................................…….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M’NDEREBA M’NAICHU………………………………................................….1ST DEFENDANT
THE LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT OFFICER MERU SOUTH.....2ND DEFENDANT
THE LAND REGISTRAR MERU SOUTH…………………..........................…3RD DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………...........................………..4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 6. 10. 2016 and seeks orders:
1. That this application be certified urgent
2. That pending the hearing and determination of this application an order of inhibition do issue restraining the registration of all dealings relating to L.R. NO.KARINGANI/MARIANI/5452.
3. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit an order of inhibition do issue restraining the registration of all dealings relating to L.R. NO.KARINGANI/MARIANI/5452.
4. That costs of this application do abide the outcome thereof.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Humphrey Mbaabu Mbaka and has the following grounds:
1. That the plaintiff was the owner of the entire suit property prior to the completion of the adjudication process.
2. That the 1st defendant clandestinely obtained a decision to hire off a portion from the suit property by the 2nd defendant.
3. That the implementation of the said decision was stayed by a validly obtained court order.
4. That prior to the determination of the suit in which the order was obtained the 2nd defendant has proceeded to implement his decision paving the way for the 3rd defendant to register the 1st defendant as the owner of the disputed portion.
5. That the defendants have acted illegally unlawfully and fraudulently and deprived the plaintiff of a substantial portion of this land.
6. That the plaintiff is apprehensive that the 1st defendant shall deal with the portion he has obtained in a manner detrimental to the plaintiff’s interest.
7. That it is the interest of justice and fairness that the orders herein are sought.
3. On 9th March, 2017, MR. Muriithi for the plaintiff urged the court to allow the application as it only sought an order of inhibition to preserve the suit land.
4. I find that an order of inhibition will not prejudice any of the parties.
5. The application is allowed and prayer 3 is confirmed.
6. Costs shall be in the cause.
7. The plaintiff is directed to serve the orders issued by the court today upon the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants within 7days of today.
8. The plaintiff is ordered to fully comply with order 11, CPR, within 7 days of today and the defendants are to fully comply with order 11 CPR, within 7 days after receipt of the plaintiff’s compliance documents.
9. Parties to come to court for directions on 23. 3.2017.
10. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 9th day of March, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Muriithi for the plaintiff
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE