[2010] KEHC 3372 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants had demonstrated a legitimate concern that the respondent might dispose of the suit properties before the appeal is determined, which could render the appeal nugatory if successful. The court exercised its discretion under section 128 of the Registered Land Act to grant an order...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3372 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Julius Kithinji Nkanata; Appellant: Gerald Gikunda Nkanata; Respondent: M'Nkanata M'Mutungi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 71 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for inhibition allowed with time limitation.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Land Disputes, Trusts in Land, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Julius Kithinji Nkanata
Appellant
Gerald Gikunda Nkanata
Appellant
M'Nkanata M'Mutungi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Inhibition Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to an order of inhibition over the suit properties pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent should be restrained from disposing of the suit properties to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants had demonstrated a legitimate concern that the respondent might dispose of the suit properties before the appeal is determined, which could render the appeal nugatory if successful. The court exercised its discretion under section 128 of the Registered Land Act to grant an order of inhibition, but limited its duration to ensure expeditious resolution of the dispute. The inhibition was therefore issued in respect of the specified parcels of land, to subsist only until a fixed date, after which it would automatically lapse, balancing the interests of both parties and the need for timely conclusion of the matter.
Court Disposition
Application for inhibition allowed with time limitation.
Orders
- Inhibition is hereby issued in respect of parcels NKUENE/URUKU/1653 and 1665 or NKUENE/URUKU/4, restraining M'Nkanata M'Mutungi from disposing of those properties.
- The order of inhibition shall subsist up to 1st December 2010 and shall automatically be vacated thereafter without further court order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
Civil Appeal 71 of 2009
JULIUS KITHINJI NKANATA …….……….. 1ST APPELLANT
GERALD GIKUNDA NKANATA ……………. 2ND APPELANT
VERSUS
M’NKANATA M’MUTUNGI ………..…………. RESPONDENT
RULING
An appeal has been preferred against the ruling of the lower court where the lower court ruled that the appellant’s case did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Whilst this appeal was pending the respondent sought in the subordinate court the lifting of the caution/inhibition and/or encumbrances placed on parcel number NKUENE/URUKU/4. The inhibition and caution had been issued by the lower court pending the hearing of that case which was dismissed. The appellant in this appeal have filed an application dated 15th September 2009 seeking to inhibit the parcels of land that have been sub divided from NKUENE/URUKU/4 pending the hearing of this appeal. The argument for the orders to be granted are based on the claim by the appellants that the respondent will sell the property before the conclusion of this appeal and thereby defeat the appellant’s appeal. The respondent in opposition argues that the lower court removed the caution and inhibition on his application in the lower court which was not opposed by the appellant. It is section 128 of the Registered land Act which gives the court power to order inhibition. In his case, the appellants are appealing against the dismissal of their suit by the lower court which was dismissed for not disclosing reasonable cause of action. If the appellant does succeed in this appeal, and they are given an opportunity to proceed to the lower court, which case is based on a claim that the respondent holds the land on trust, their claim would fail if the property is sold to a third party. The respondent is a father of the appellant. I am however aware from reading the affidavits that there has been inordinate delay in concluding the dispute between the parties. That delay cannot entirely be blamed on any party. Having considered the appellant’s application dated 15th October 2009, the replying affidavit and submissions made before me, I am minded to grant orders of inhibition but limit that order to ensure that parties do proceed with their matter with haste. The following are the orders of the court:-
1. The court orders that inhibition be and is hereby issued in respect of parcels NKUENE/URUKU/1653 and 1665 or NKUENE/URUKU/4 stopping M’NKANATA M’MUTUNGI from disposing those properties.
2. The order of inhibition in number 1 above shall subsist up to 1st December 2010 on which date it shall automatically be vacated without further orders of this court.
3. The costs of the application dated 15th October 2009 shall abide with this appeal.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 12th day of March 2010.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE