Baya & another v Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd & 3 others (Land Case E230 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 2904 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the suit had been concluded and final orders issued, so the event triggering removal of the inhibition had occurred. Since there was no pending suit and no stay application by the plaintiffs, the restriction could not be retained over a private citizen's title. The application was therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 2904 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Juma Abitoya Baya & another; Defendant: Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd & 3 others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case E230 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Application to Remove Inhibition/restriction
- Outcome
- Application allowed
- Judges
- ["FM Njoroge"]
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition and Restriction on Title, Removal of Encumbrance After Judgment, Effect of Concluded Suit on Preservation Orders, Costs of Application
- 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
Juma Abitoya Baya & another
Plaintiff
Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd & 3 others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Application to Remove Inhibition/restriction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inhibition and/or restriction registered against Kilifi/Kawala Kadzonzo/399 should be vacated after judgment in the suit.
- 2 Whether the pending appeal by the plaintiffs justified retaining the restriction despite conclusion of the suit.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the suit had been concluded and final orders issued, so the event triggering removal of the inhibition had occurred. Since there was no pending suit and no stay application by the plaintiffs, the restriction could not be retained over a private citizen's title. The application was therefore allowed and costs awarded against the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- The inhibition and/or restriction registered against Kilifi/Kawala Kadzonzo/399 is to be vacated, removed and/or cancelled by the Land Registrar Kilifi.
- The Land Registrar Kilifi shall issue a certificate of official search confirming that the inhibition and/or restriction has been vacated, removed and cancelled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Baya & another v Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd & 3 others (Land Case E230 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 2904 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2904 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi Land Case E230 of 2018 FM Njoroge, J May 13, 2026 Between Juma Abitoya Baya & another Plaintiff and Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd & 3 others Defendant Ruling 1.The application dated 5th March 2026 seeks an order that the inhibition and/or restriction registered against the property known as Kilifi/Kawala Kadzonzo/399 be vacated, removed and/or cancelled by the Land Registrar Kilifi, and also that the Registrar do issue a certificate of official search confirming that the said inhibition and/or restriction has been vacated/removed and cancelled. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kishorkumar Dhanji Varsani, also dated 5th March 2026. 2.The application is premised on the grounds that the time stated in the said inhibition has expired since the suit mentioned in the inhibition entry has been concluded and judgment delivered. 3.The application is opposed by the plaintiffs through the affidavit of the first plaintiff, Juma Abitoya Baya, dated 19th March 2026, in which he depones as follows: that the restriction was meant to preserve the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the dispute; judgment was delivered but he is dissatisfied with the judgment and he has filed an appeal against the whole decision, and if the restriction is lifted at this stage, the applicant will be at liberty to deal with the suit property including by selling, transferring and/or charging it to third parties and such dealings would render their bill nugatory as the property may pass window therefore defeating his claim. 4.The application was disposed of by way of written submissions. The first defendant filed submissions dated 17th March 2026 while the plaintiff’s submissions are dated 15th April 2026. I have carefully read and considered those submissions. Analysis And Determination 5.This court has noted that the application before it is not an application for stay of execution filed by the plaintiff; that is what would have granted strength to the grounds raised by the plaintiffs. The application was filed by the 1st defendant. It is correct that the event stipulated in the inhibition recorded in the Land Register as condition precedent to the removal of the inhibition has already taken place since the present suit has been concluded and final orders issued in the judgment. 6.Consequently, there is no justification for maintaining the said inhibition and or restriction on the suit title owned by a private citizen while there is no suit pending. I therefore allow the application dated 5th March 2026 in terms of prayer nos. 2 and 3 thereof. 7.The costs of the application shall be borne by the plaintiffs who unsuccessfully opposed the same. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI ON THIS 13TH MAY 2026. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC MALINDI.