[2016] KEHC 682 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 682 (KLR)

The court found that it had already issued substantive orders on 20th July, 2016, directing the removal of any encumbrances, cautions, injunctions, inhibitions, or restrictions on the subject land parcels and empowering the Executive Officer to execute all necessary documents. Issuing a similar order in response to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 682 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jadiel Kirongo M'Ithiano; Respondent: Julius Gatobu M'Ithiano
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 227 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Removal of Caution, Execution of Judgment, Land Title Restrictions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Removal of Caution Execution of Judgment Land Title Restrictions

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jadiel Kirongo M'Ithiano

Appellant

Julius Gatobu M'Ithiano

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should issue a fresh order for removal of restrictions or cautions on the specified land parcels despite a similar order having been previously issued.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the orders sought in light of the court's earlier ruling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it had already issued substantive orders on 20th July, 2016, directing the removal of any encumbrances, cautions, injunctions, inhibitions, or restrictions on the subject land parcels and empowering the Executive Officer to execute all necessary documents. Issuing a similar order in response to the present application would be redundant and amount to issuing orders in vain. The applicant was advised to implement the existing orders rather than seek fresh ones. Consequently, the application was dismissed as the relief sought had already been granted in the earlier ruling.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 2nd November, 2016 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.