[2016] KEHC 889 (KLR)
The court found that the application for inhibition was meritorious as it would serve to preserve the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The court noted that the application had already been allowed in a previous ruling and reiterated that the only operative order was for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 889 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: M'atheru M'ithibua; Applicant: Lucy Kinyu M'abuange; Respondent: MasMus Murithi; Respondent: District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe District; Respondent: District Land Registrar Igembe District; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 99 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Land Inhibition Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Land Adjudication, Registration of Land, Preservation of Suit Property
- 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
M'atheru M'ithibua
Applicant
Lucy Kinyu M'abuange
Applicant
MasMus Murithi
Respondent
District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe District
Respondent
District Land Registrar Igembe District
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Inhibition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an inhibition order against Land Parcel Number 1340/Naathu/Naathu pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the inhibition order should affect the 1st respondent's occupation of the suit land.
- 3 Whether the application was properly served and meritorious.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for inhibition was meritorious as it would serve to preserve the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The court noted that the application had already been allowed in a previous ruling and reiterated that the only operative order was for the registration of an inhibition against the specified land parcel. The court clarified that the inhibition order should not be used to evict or interfere with the 1st respondent's occupation of the land. The respondents were granted time to file their responses and defences, and the applicants were directed to obtain a date for directions after the expiry of the response period. No...
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The application dated 14/07/2016 is allowed on interim basis in terms of prayer 4, subject to the 1st respondent not being evicted or interfered with on the suit land.
- 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents granted 60 days to respond and file a defence; parties granted leave to further respond as necessary.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO 99 OF 2016
M'ATHERU M'ITHIBUA.................................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
LUCY KINYU M'ABUANGE......................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
MASMUS MURITHI.......................................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION AND SETTLEMENT
OFFICER IGEMBE DISTRICT...........................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR IGEMBE DISTRICT...........3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL..................................................4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. This application is dated 14/07/2016. On 21/09/2016, Mr. Mwanzia asked the Court to allow the application as the defendants had been properly served and an affidavit of service had been filed even though there was no appearance for the 1st defendant.
2. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants supported the application and their Lawyer told the Court that allowing the application would preserve the suit land.
3. It is clear from the Court's record that this application was allowed via a Ruling delivered by this Court on 27/07/2016.
4. Nevertheless it is made clear that the application was found to be meritorious and the following orders are issued:-
(1) The application dated 14/07/2016 is allowed on interim basis in terms of prayer 4 provided that if the 1st Defendant lives on the suit land, this order for Inhibition, should not supposedly be used to evict him or interfere with his stay on the suit land.
(2) 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents granted 60 days to respond, file a defence and parties are granted liberal leave to further respond, as and if necessary.
(3 The 1st Respondent granted 60 days to file his responses, defence and any other apposite documents he may wish to file .
(4) The Plaintiffs/Applicants to obtain a date for directions from the Registry upon expiry of 60 days from 19/12/2016 and to appropriately serve the said date upon the Defendants.
(5) For avoidance of doubt no Injunctive Orders have been granted and the applicants are ordered not to bring this application back to Court as they have done, even though a Ruling had been delivered on 27/07/2016.
(6) The only order granted is for registration of an Inhibition against Land Parcel Number No. 1340/NAATHU/NAATHU .
(7) Costs to be in the cause.
(8) It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C:A: Daniel
Mutembei for Plaintiff /Applicant
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE