[2018] KEELC 2462 (KLR)
The court found that the suit had been dismissed on 12.11.2015, and therefore, there was no longer any basis for the inhibition to remain on the suit properties. The court noted that although the plaintiff had previously sought inhibition and injunction orders which were not granted, inhibitions were nevertheless...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2462 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Karuthu Magiri alias Mary Magiri (Suing as the administratix of the estate of M’Magiri M’Anampiu); Defendant: John Kaburu Magiri; Defendant: Settlement Funds Trustee; Defendant: M’Rutere M’Nguthari; Defendant: Florence Muthoni Abira Charles
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 14 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Land Inhibition, Removal of Inhibition, Dismissal of Suit
- 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
Karuthu Magiri alias Mary Magiri (Suing as the administratix of the estate of M’Magiri M’Anampiu)
Plaintiff
John Kaburu Magiri
Defendant
Settlement Funds Trustee
Defendant
M’Rutere M’Nguthari
Defendant
Florence Muthoni Abira Charles
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inhibition against L.R No. Ntirimiti/Settlement/1056 and 1057 should be lifted after dismissal of the suit.
- 2 Whether any valid inhibition is subsisting on the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit had been dismissed on 12.11.2015, and therefore, there was no longer any basis for the inhibition to remain on the suit properties. The court noted that although the plaintiff had previously sought inhibition and injunction orders which were not granted, inhibitions were nevertheless lodged pending determination of the suit. With the suit now dismissed, the inhibitions should not subsist. The court allowed the application to lift the inhibition, holding that the existence of a dismissed suit removes the legal foundation for any continuing inhibition on the land.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The inhibition against L.R No. Ntirimiti/Settlement/1056 and 1057 is lifted.
- Costs of the application awarded to the defendant/applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 14 OF 2006
KARUTHU MAGIRI alias MARY MAGIRI
(Suing as the administratix of the estate of )
M’MAGIRI M’ANAMPIU.................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
JOHN KABURU MAGIRI...........1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
SETTLEMENT FUNDS TRUSTEE.................. 2ND DEFENDANT
M’RUTERE M’NGUTHARI.............................. 3RD DEFENDANT
FLORENCE MUTHONI ABIRA CHARLES.. 4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the application of 11. 2.2016, applicant/defendant is seeking orders for the removal or lifting of an inhibition against L.R No. Ntirimiti/Settlement/1056 and 1057. The basis upon which this application is brought is that the suit is concluded as the same was dismissed on 12. 11. 2015.
2. The application is opposed on grounds that defendant has no authority to swear the affidavit as required by the law. It is also averred that applicant has not annexed any affidavit and that there is nothing to show that the suit was dismissed. Finally respondent avers that there is nothing to indicate that there is an inhibition on the suit land.
3. A perused of the court’s records reveals that this suit was dismissed vide the court’s ruling of 12. 11. 2015. It matters not that there is no decree extracted. The fact remains that there is no suit.
4. Should the inhibitions be lifted? Are there any such inhibitions in place?. I have again perused the record and I have come across a ruling of Judge Lenaola (as he then was) dated 3. 5.2006. The present plaintiff had sought orders of inhibition and injunction, but they were not granted. Nevertheless inhibitions were still lodged thereafter pending the determination of civil case no. 14 of 2006. It follows that such inhibitions should not be subsisting when there is no pending case.
5. The application of 11. 2.2016 is allowed with costs to defendant/applicant.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
Kirimi for Kiautha Arithi for plaintiff
Gikunda for defendant
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE