[2023] KEELC 15993 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a proper basis for lifting the inhibition orders because the parties to the consent order and those to the original suit were materially different, raising questions about the enforceability of the consent. Additionally, the applicant did not explain the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 15993 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fredrick Muthuri M’rukaria; Respondent: M’Ikiara M’angaine; Respondent: Nkubitu M’angaine
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 203 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Inhibition Orders, Consent Orders, Execution of Decrees, Title Restrictions
- 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
Fredrick Muthuri M’rukaria
Applicant
M’Ikiara M’angaine
Respondent
Nkubitu M’angaine
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Inhibition Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the inhibition orders registered against L R No Abothuguchi/Katheri/166 & 167 should be lifted given the consent order and final court order of August 3, 1992.
- 2 Whether the parties to the consent and the original suit are materially different, affecting enforceability.
- 3 Whether the applicant has explained the delay and steps taken to execute the consent order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a proper basis for lifting the inhibition orders because the parties to the consent order and those to the original suit were materially different, raising questions about the enforceability of the consent. Additionally, the applicant did not explain the inordinate delay in executing the consent order or provide evidence of any attempt to have the land registrar implement the order. In the absence of clarity on these issues and with no satisfactory explanation for the delay or procedural compliance, the court held it would be inappropriate to lift the inhibition orders under the circumstances.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated August 2, 2022 to lift inhibition orders is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
M’rukaria v M’angaine & another (Environment & Land Case 203 of 1990) [2023] KEELC 15993 (KLR) (8 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 15993 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment & Land Case 203 of 1990
CK Nzili, J
March 8, 2023
Between
Fredrick Muthuri M’rukaria
Plaintiff
and
M’Ikiara M’angaine
1st Respondent
Nkubitu M’angaine
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The court is asked to lift and vacate orders of inhibition registered against L R No Abothuguchi/Katheri/166 & 167 on July 31, 1991, on the basis that the same have been overtaken by events, following final orders made by the court on August 3, 1992. In the supporting affidavit by Fredrick Muthuri sworn on August 2, 2022, the deponent stated that following the inhibition orders, parties compromised the suit through a consent dated July 25, 1992, filed before the court on July 27, 1992 and later adopted by the court on August 3, 1992.
2. The applicant attached the order, a copy of the consent and the court order as annexures marked FMM “1”, “2” and “3”, respectively. It is the applicant’s position therefore that, the final court order cannot be enforced unless the pending restrictions over the title are vacated.
3. The court has gone through the skeleton file and the application herein. The parties to the consent and the ones who had filed the suit appear materially different. There is also no indication if after the consent was filed, a decree of the court was extracted and issued apart from the order dated August 3, 1992. As regards the order made, the parties who were to be beneficiarily entitled to the land were not parties to the suit.
4. So, in other words, the parties who agreed to the inhibition orders to be issued in the first instance were not the ones who allegedly consented to the orders over the title deed.
5. It is also not clear why there has been an inordinate delay in the execution of the consent order if at all parties consented to final orders, almost 2 years after the inhibition orders came into operation. Further, the applicant has not explained if they took the order to the land registrar and he/she declined to implement it on account of the alleged final orders. See Julius Nturibi Rukaria vs Mary Ncekei Kirianki & another (2021) eKLR. Eliphas Mbae Arithi vs Angela Gatumi Mucheke (2021) eKLR.
6. For the above reasons, I find it inappropriate to lift the inhibition under the circumstances. Consequently, the application dated August 2, 2022 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT THIS 8THDAY OF MARCH, 2023In presence of:C/A: Kananu/John PaulSandi for applicantHON. C.K. NZILIELC JUDGE