[2017] KEELC 1629 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1629 (KLR)

The court found that the restriction on the Plaintiff's land was placed without evidence of inquiry, notice, or hearing as required by law. The Defendants failed to appear or justify the restriction, and no evidence was provided to support its continued existence. The statutory requirements under Sections 76, 77,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1629 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Murimi Kinene; Defendant: The Assistant County Commissioner, Ngenda Ward; Defendant: The Land Registrar, Gatundu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 438 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; restriction to be removed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
Judges
LN Gacheru
Legal Topics
Land Restrictions, Removal of Restriction, Land Registration, Notice Requirements
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Restrictions Removal of Restriction Land Registration Notice Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Murimi Kinene

Plaintiff

The Assistant County Commissioner, Ngenda Ward

Defendant

The Land Registrar, Gatundu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the restriction lodged against land parcel No.Ndarugu/Gacharage/2439 was lawfully placed and followed due process.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was given notice and a hearing before the restriction was registered.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for removal of the restriction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the restriction on the Plaintiff's land was placed without evidence of inquiry, notice, or hearing as required by law. The Defendants failed to appear or justify the restriction, and no evidence was provided to support its continued existence. The statutory requirements under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Land Registration Act were not met. The court held that the Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor, was entitled to removal of the restriction, as the Defendants did not discharge their burden to justify it. The Plaintiff's case was proved on a balance of probabilities, warranting judgment in his favor.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff; restriction to be removed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The 2nd Defendant is ordered to withdraw the restriction lodged from the 1st Defendant against land parcel No.Ndarugu/Gacharage/2439.
  • The Defendants shall pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.