[2018] KEELC 3234 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3234 (KLR)

The court found that the leave granted to file a substantive application for mandamus lapsed when the respondent failed to file the application within the prescribed period. Consequently, all interim orders, including the restriction on land parcel TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192, also lapsed. However, the restriction remained...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3234 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Muhada Imbunya; Respondent: District Land Registrar, Vihiga; Respondent: David Kalo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 8 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Substantive Application for Mandamus
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Removal of Land Restriction, Mandamus Orders, Lapse of Leave, Res Judicata, Land Registration, Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Removal of Land Restriction Mandamus Orders Lapse of Leave Res Judicata Land Registration Court Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Muhada Imbunya

Applicant

District Land Registrar, Vihiga

Respondent

David Kalo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Substantive Application for Mandamus

  1. 1 Whether the restriction registered on land parcel TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192 should be removed by order of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the leave granted to file a substantive application for mandamus lapsed, and the effect thereof.
  3. 3 Whether the application is res judicata and whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the leave granted to file a substantive application for mandamus lapsed when the respondent failed to file the application within the prescribed period. Consequently, all interim orders, including the restriction on land parcel TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192, also lapsed. However, the restriction remained on the register because the Land Registrar required a court order to remove it. While the respondent argued that the matter was res judicata and the court lacked jurisdiction, the court held that, in the interest of justice and to clarify the effect of the withdrawal and lapse of orders, it was proper to grant the order for removal of the restriction. The court thus ordered...

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The Vihiga District Land Registrar is ordered to remove the restriction registered on land parcel number TIRIKI/CHEPTULU/1192.
  • The costs of this application shall be borne by the applicant.