[2013] KEHC 5959 (KLR)
The court found that parcel NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/3869 is registered in the names of the respondents, with no evidence presented to suggest that they hold it in trust for the applicants or that the registration was irregular. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to all rights and privileges of proprietorship under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5959 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sabastiano Njogu Njagi; Applicant: Catherine Wanjiru Njogu; Respondent: Janeffer Wakuthii Munyi; Respondent: Teressa Wambui Muriithi; Respondent: James Wahaki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 7 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Prohibitory and Inhibition Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Land Registration, Prohibitory Orders, Inhibition Orders, Title Reversion, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Sabastiano Njogu Njagi
Applicant
Catherine Wanjiru Njogu
Applicant
Janeffer Wakuthii Munyi
Respondent
Teressa Wambui Muriithi
Respondent
James Wahaki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Prohibitory and Inhibition Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to prohibitory and inhibition orders over parcels NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/3869 and NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925.
- 2 Whether the Land Registrar should be ordered to cancel new parcel numbers and revert to the original number NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925.
- 3 Whether the application was properly brought before the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that parcel NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/3869 is registered in the names of the respondents, with no evidence presented to suggest that they hold it in trust for the applicants or that the registration was irregular. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to all rights and privileges of proprietorship under the Land Registration Act. Regarding NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925, it is registered in the name of the 1st applicant, making a prohibitory order against one's own land inappropriate. The request to cancel and revert parcel numbers NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/4549 and 4551 to NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925 could only be considered after a full trial, as there was insufficient evidence regarding the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERUGOYA
ELC NO. 7 OF 2013
SABASTIANO NJOGU NJAGI ..............................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
CATHERINE WANJIRU NJOGU ............................2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
JANEFFER WAKUTHII MUNYI .......................1STDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
TERESSA WAMBUI MURIITHI .......................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
JAMES WAHAKI ............................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The plaintiffs/applicants filed this suit against the defendants/respondents on 4/4/2012 seeking a prohibitory order in respect of two parcels of land being NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/3869 and NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925 and also an order directed at the Kirinyaga District Lands Registrar to revert the new numbers to NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925.
Simultaneous with that plaint, the plaintiff/applicants also filed an application seeking a temporarily inhibition against the said two parcels of land and also an order that the Land Registrar cancels the new numbers NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/4549 and 4551 and revert back to the original number NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925. The application is supported by the affidavit of the 2nd plaintiff/applicant.
The application was opposed and the defendants/respondents filed a replying affidavit.
The said application is the subject of this ruling and it was canvassed orally before me on 17/5/2013 with Mr. Mwai appearing for the defendants/respondents and the 2nd plaintiff/applicant representing the 1st plaintiff/applicant.
I have considered the said application as well as the affidavits and annextures. From the evidence on record, I notice that parcel of land No. NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/3869 is registered in the names of the three defendants/respondents while parcel of land No. NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925 is registered in the names of the 1st plaintiff/applicant.
With regard to parcel No. NGARIAMA/NGIRIABU/3869, there is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that the said land is being held in trust by the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the registration of the said parcel in their names gives them all the rights and privileges provided for under Section 24 and 28 of the Land Registration Act or Section 28 of the now repealed Registered Land Actunder which the title was issued. No reason have been placed before me to warrant issuing the orders of prohibition with respect to L.R No. NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/3869.
And with respect to NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925, the said parcel of land is registered on the names of the 1st plaintiff/applicant herein and I believe the inclusion of this parcel was an error as one cannot seek a prohibition against one’s own land.
The other remedy that the land register be cancelled and parcel numbers NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/4549 and 4551 do revert to NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925 is a remedy that can only be granted after full trial. In any case, it is not indicated when land number NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/925 was sub-divided into 4549 and 4551 and neither has the Court been shown the documents of ownership of NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/4549 and 4551. Indeed it was difficult to follow the applicant’s arguments perhaps because she conducted her application in person. Indeed the application itself was brought under the wrong provision of the law but that issue was not taken up by Mr. Mwai and the Court decided to hear the application on merit.
Having considered the application, I find that it lacks merit. I accordingly dismiss it with no order as to costs.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
10/6/2013
10/6/2013
Before B.N. OLAO - JUDGE
CC – Muriithi
No appearance for Plaintiff
Ms Thungu for Mwai for Defendant present
COURT: Ruling delivered this 10th day of June, 2013 in open Court.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
10/6/2013