[2023] KEELC 19235 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 19235 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the cases under which the inhibition orders were imposed had been finalized or that the destruction of the files constituted the occurrence of an event contemplated by the Land Registration Act for lifting the inhibition. The applicant did not obtain...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 19235 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Kanana (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Joseph Gikunda M'Mugambi – Deceased); Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General; Respondent: Land Registrar Meru Central
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Remove Inhibition
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
CK Nzili
Legal Topics
Removal of Inhibition, Land Registration, Succession and Estates, Court File Destruction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Removal of Inhibition Land Registration Succession and Estates Court File Destruction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Kanana (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Joseph Gikunda M'Mugambi – Deceased)

Applicant

The Honourable Attorney General

Respondent

Land Registrar Meru Central

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Remove Inhibition

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for the removal of the inhibition on L R No Abothuguchi/Katheri/159.
  2. 2 Whether the destruction of court files constitutes an event warranting the lifting of the inhibition under the Land Registration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the cases under which the inhibition was imposed were finalized.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the cases under which the inhibition orders were imposed had been finalized or that the destruction of the files constituted the occurrence of an event contemplated by the Land Registration Act for lifting the inhibition. The applicant did not obtain a certificate from the Deputy Registrar confirming the destruction of the relevant files, nor did she demonstrate that she was a party to those cases or that the outcome of the cases warranted removal of the inhibition. The court held that the mere destruction of files, without evidence of finalization or occurrence of a relevant event, is insufficient to justify the removal...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated May 25, 2023 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.