[2014] KEHC 2500 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 2500 (KLR)

The court found that the ex parte orders restricting dealings with the suit property were granted on the basis of a Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2012, which was subsequently dismissed for non-attendance on 8th November 2012. As a result, the circumstances justifying the restriction or caveat no longer existed....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 2500 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nancy Gathoni; Plaintiff: Ann Njeri; Plaintiff: Geoffrey Mwaura Muthoni; Defendant: Ruth Njambi Ndururu; Defendant: Faith Wanjiru Muya; Defendant: Rahab Wanjiru Ndung’u; Defendant: Godfrey Mbugua Mwaura; Defendant: Johnson Njogu Mugo; Defendant: Registrar of Titles Kiambu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 356 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Lift Restriction
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Removal of Caution, Land Title Restrictions, Land Registration Act, Caveats, Court Orders on Land, Land Dispute Procedure
Source Language
en
Land and Property Removal of Caution Land Title Restrictions Land Registration Act Caveats Court Orders on Land Land Dispute Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Gathoni

Plaintiff

Ann Njeri

Plaintiff

Geoffrey Mwaura Muthoni

Plaintiff

Ruth Njambi Ndururu

Defendant

Faith Wanjiru Muya

Defendant

Rahab Wanjiru Ndung’u

Defendant

Godfrey Mbugua Mwaura

Defendant

Johnson Njogu Mugo

Defendant

Registrar of Titles Kiambu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Lift Restriction

  1. 1 Whether the restriction/caution registered against the title to Karai/Karai/1667 should be withdrawn.
  2. 2 Whether the substratum for the restriction still exists.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex parte orders restricting dealings with the suit property were granted on the basis of a Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2012, which was subsequently dismissed for non-attendance on 8th November 2012. As a result, the circumstances justifying the restriction or caveat no longer existed. The court held that under sections 71 and 73 of the Land Registration Act, a restriction or caution can only subsist where its underlying basis remains valid. Since the substratum for the restriction had fallen away, the court allowed the application and ordered the District Land Registrar, Kiambu, to remove any restrictions or caveats registered against the title to...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The District Land Registrar, Kiambu, is ordered to forthwith remove any restrictions and/or caveat registered against the title to Karai/Karai/1667 and/or its subdivisions.
  • The 1st Defendant shall meet the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2013.