[2018] KEELC 1281 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1281 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit properties and that the defendant had wrongfully caused restrictions to be registered against the titles. There was no defence or evidence from the defendant to justify the restrictions. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1281 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Kung’u Muturi; Defendant: Robinson Mungai Gaichuhie
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 712 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit allowed in part; prayers (a), (b), and (d) granted; damages denied.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Removal of Restriction, Land Title Registration, Injunctive Relief, Quiet Enjoyment, Proprietary Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Removal of Restriction Land Title Registration Injunctive Relief Quiet Enjoyment Proprietary Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Kung’u Muturi

Plaintiff

Robinson Mungai Gaichuhie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit properties and entitled to their quiet enjoyment.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant wrongfully caused restrictions to be registered against the plaintiff's land parcels.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to removal of the restrictions and a permanent injunction against the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit properties and that the defendant had wrongfully caused restrictions to be registered against the titles. There was no defence or evidence from the defendant to justify the restrictions. The court held that in the absence of any justification or controverting evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to the removal of the restrictions and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further interference. The claim for general damages was denied due to lack of evidentiary basis. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit allowed in part; prayers (a), (b), and (d) granted; damages denied.

Orders

  • The restrictions registered against Land Parcel Nos Karai/Karai/2859, Karai/Karai/2860, Karai/Karai/2861, Karai/Karai/2862, Karai/Karai/2863, Karai/Karai/2864, Karai/Karai/2865, Karai/Karai/2866, Karai/Karai/2867 and Karai/Karai/2868 by the defendant are lifted and their registration is canceled forthwith.
  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendant from encumbering or interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the suit parcels.