https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3591

Mutunga v County Land Registrar, Laikipia County Land Registry (Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3591 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3591 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2025 LN Mbugua, J June 10, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: CHAPTER FOUR, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27(1), 28,029(d) & (f), 31, 35, 40, 43(1)(b), 47, 50, 159(2) AND ARTICLES 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOM UNDER ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27(1), 28, 29(d)&(f), 31, 35, 40(1), 43(1)(b), 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND REGISTRATION ACT NO. 3 OF 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY: JAMES ALFANS NZEMYA Between James Alfans Nzemya Mutunga Applicant and The County Land Registrar, Laikipia County Land Registry Respondent Judgment 1.This miscellaneous suit was filed by way of a Notice of Motion Application dated 28.4.2025. The Applicant seeks the following orders;1.That this honourable court be pleased to grant an order compelling the Respondent herein to lift the restriction it unlawfully lodged on 13.01.2016 in the register of the Applicant’s/Petitioner’s all that parcel of land known as L.R. Euasonyiro Elpejeta Block 1/952 situated within the County of Laikipia with immediate effect.2.That the honourable court be pleased to grant an order of injunction restraining the Respondent, its agents, servants, employees and/or any other person(s) acting on its behalf from seizing, detaining, holding, cautioning, interfering or in any other way prejudicial and/or adverse to the Applicant/Petitioner the Applicant’s/Petitioner’s all that parcel of land known as L.R. Euasonyiro Elpejeta Block 1/952 situated within the County of Laikipia arbitrarily and without any justification forthwith.3.That the costs of this application be awarded to the Applicant/Petitioner. 2.The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of the applicant. He avers that he is the registered owner of the suit property, having been issued with a title deed on 12.7.2012. He contends that the respondent lodged a restriction on the suit property on 26.3.2013, lifted it on 22.8.2013, then lodged another one on 13.1.2016, on the allegation that the land was public land. He avers that for the last 9 years, the respondent has failed to file a suit against him to prove the allegations, and that the respondent is harassing him psychologically and is also violating his right to property. 3.On 16.3.2026, the respondent made an application to file a response within 14 days, of which a replying affidavit was filed and is dated 31.3.2026 where it is admitted that the applicant is the registered owner of the suit land. However, as per the final members register, the land was reserved for afforestation. The respondent has availed the members register to support its claim. 4.I have considered the arguments proffered herein. The issue for determination is whether the restriction lodged on the suit property on 13.1.2016 should be removed. A perusal of the documents availed herein reveals that the applicant is the registered owner of the suit property. 5.The protection of right to property is enshrined under Article 40 of the Constitution. Sub rule (3) of the said Article stipulates that;(3)The State shall not deprive a person of property of any description, or of any interest in, or right over, property of any description, unless the deprivation—(a)results from an acquisition of land or an interest in land or a conversion of an interest in land, or title to land, in accordance with Chapter Five; or(b)is for a public purpose or in the public interest and is carried out in accordance with this Constitution and any Act of Parliament that—(i)requires prompt payment in full, of just compensation to the person; and(ii)allows any person who has an interest in, or right over, that property a right of access to a court of law. 6.The provisions of Section 78 (2) of the Land Registration Act provides that;“Upon the application of a proprietor affected by a restriction, and upon notice to the Registrar, the court may order a restriction to be removed, varied, or other order as it deems fit, and may make an order as to costs”. 7.The Title deed availed by the applicant reveals that a restriction was lodged on 13.1.2016 on an allegation that the land was public land. Ten years down the line and counting, there is no evidence of the steps taken by the respondent to prove the allegations despite the fact that they have the alleged proof. 8.In the circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the application is merited and is allowed as drawn. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:C/A – NancyJames Mutunga Applicant in personIsaiah Waweru Ngumi – 1st Interested party in personDr. Canon Michael – 2nd Interested party