https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4557

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT THIKA** **ELC MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E103 OF 2025** **PETER MWANIKI MAINA …………..…..........……………. APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **DIRECTOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT** **NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE ………….…...……. 1ST RESPONDENT** **DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR …………….…..…. 2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. By a Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2025 the Applicant filed an application seeking the following orders: 1. *Spent.* 2. *That this Honourable court be pleased to order the District Land Registrar Kiambu to forthwith remove the restriction registered on 4th July 2023 against title number THIKA MINICIPALITY BLOCK 5/266 at the instance of the Internal Affairs Unit, National Police Service.* 3. *That an order does issue that the continued maintenance of the said restriction is unlawful, unconstitutional and a violation of the Applicant’s proprietary rights.* 4. *That the Respondents be condemned to bear the costs of this application.* 2. The application is premised on the Applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on even date. 3. In the said affidavit the Applicant avers that he is the absolute and indefeasible proprietor of the land parcel known as THIKA MINICIPALITY BLOCK 5/266, having acquired he same lawfully. 4. He further avers that on 4th July 2023, the 1st Respondent caused a restriction to be registered against the said title without giving any notice, reason or explanation to the Applicant. 5. He adds that to date no investigation, complaint or inquiry has been brought to his attention to justify the continued encumbrance. 6. The Applicant wrote a letter dated 3rd October seeking clarification or removal of the restriction but the same was ignored. 7. He is of the view the that the restriction has no legal basis and its continued existence is an infringement on the Applicant’s proprietary rights under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya and economic interests as it impedes the Applicant from dealing with his property and in particular his ability to obtain a financial facility using the said title as security. Further that the same violates section 76(1) (b) and (2) of the Land Registration Act which requires that restrictions be supported by lawful cause and due notice. 8. He therefore prays that the application be granted as prayed. 9. The application was strenuously resisted by the Respondents through the Replying Affidavit of Chief Inspector Willian Juma, a Senior Investigator a the Directorate of Criminal Investigations whose essence is that that there are on-going investigations relating to the manner in which the Applicant acquired his title following a complaint by one Jane Njoki Mwangi that Dickson Muiruri Mwangi, her late husband’s title was unlawfully transferred to the Applicant after the death of her husband. 10. It is his contention that the restriction is intended to facilitate proper investigations into alleged fraudulent transfer of the suit property to the Applicant and it is therefore lawful. 11. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions and by the time of writing this ruling, only the Applicant had filed his submissions. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 12. Having considered the application together with the supporting affidavit, the Replying Affidavit and Applicant’ submissions, the only issue for determination is whether the restriction should be lifted. 13. Section 76(1) of the Land Registration Act provides as follows: ***“(1) For the purposes of compulsory acquisition, the prevention of any fraud or improper dealing or for any other sufficient cause, the Registrar may either with or without the application of any person interested in the land , lease or charge and after directing such inquiries to be made and notices to be served and hearing such persons as the Registrar considers fit, make an order ( hereinafter referred to as a restriction) prohibiting or restricting dealings with any particular land, lease or charge.*** ***(2) A restriction may be expressed to endure:*** ***a) for a particular period*** ***b) until the occurrence of a particular event; or*** ***c) until further order is made;*** ***and may prohibit or restrict all dealings or only or the dealings that do not comply with specified conditions and the restriction shall be registered in the appropriate register.*** ***(2A) A restriction shall be registered in the register and may prohibit or restrict either all dealings in the land or only those dealings which do not comply with specified conditions.”*** 14. In his Replying Affidavit Chief Inspector William Juma explained that they are investigating the manner in which the Applicant obtained his title to the suit property as it is a sub-division of land parcel number THIKA MUNICIPLITY BLOCK 5 /294,297 and 298 which jointly belonged to Dickson Mururi Mwangi (deceased) and Francis Arap Sang. The suit property is one of the resultant sub-divisions that was sold without the knowledge of the deceased’s widow. 15. According to Chief Inspector’s Juma, the restriction is intended to facilitate investigations into the alleged fraudulent transfer of the suit property THIKA MINICIPALITY BLOCK 5/266. The restriction is therefore lawful and the same cannot be lifted before the investigations are completed. 16. Consequently, the application lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents. **Dated, signed and delivered virtually this 15th day of July 2026.** **...............................** **J. M ONYANGO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** 1. Mwamboni for the Respondent 2. No appearance for the Applicant Court Assistant: Hinga