[2017] KEHC 5243 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5243 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the restriction was placed by the respondent through a letter to the Commissioner of Lands. There was no evidence presented by the respondent or the Land Registrar to justify the continued existence of the restriction....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5243 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Kathurima M'Ibiri; Respondent: Paragon Property Consultants Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Lift Land Restriction
Outcome
Application allowed. Restriction on land parcel No. NTIMA/IGOKI/7353 to be lifted forthwith. Costs in the cause.
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Removal of Land Restriction, Proprietary Rights, Land Registration, Absence of Justification for Restriction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Removal of Land Restriction Proprietary Rights Land Registration Absence of Justification for Restriction

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kathurima M'Ibiri

Applicant

Paragon Property Consultants Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Lift Land Restriction

  1. 1 Whether the restriction placed on land parcel No. NTIMA/IGOKI/7353 should be lifted.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had any legal basis to cause the restriction to be placed against the applicant's land.
  3. 3 Whether the continued restriction without further action is prejudicial to the applicant's proprietary rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the restriction was placed by the respondent through a letter to the Commissioner of Lands. There was no evidence presented by the respondent or the Land Registrar to justify the continued existence of the restriction. The court applied Section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which empowers the court to remove a restriction upon application by an affected proprietor and notice to the Registrar. Given the absence of any justification for the restriction and the lack of response from the respondent, the court held that the restriction was unwarranted and ordered its removal to protect...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Restriction on land parcel No. NTIMA/IGOKI/7353 to be lifted forthwith. Costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The restriction placed on Land Parcel No. NTIMA/IGOKI/7353 is to be lifted forthwith.
  • Costs in the cause.