Case ID:185975

Julius Nturibi Rukaria v Mary Ncekei Kirianki &

another [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Environment and Land Miscellaneous E30 of 2021

Parties:

Julius Nturibi Rukaria v Mary Ncekei Kirianki & M’rukaria M’nkubitu

Date Delivered:

17 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Meru

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Christopher Kyania Nzili

Citation:

Julius Nturibi Rukaria v Mary Ncekei Kirianki &

another [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Meru

Case Outcome:

Application allowed

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT MERU

ELC MISC. E30 OF 2021

JULIUS NTURIBI RUKARIA .........1

ST

APPLICANT

VERSUS

MARY NCEKEI KIRIANKI ........... 2

ND

APPLICANT

M’RUKARIA M’NKUBITU ........ 3

RD

RESPONDENT

RULING

1. By an application dated

10.8.2021

brought under

Section 70

of the

Land Registration Act, Order 51 Rule 1, Section 1A, 1B

and

3A of the Civil Procedure Act

, the applicant seek lifting of inhibition orders issued and registered against

Parcels No’s Nyaki/Giaki/2624 and 2625

and

Nyaki/Thuura/3182, 3183, 3184 & 3185

.

2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by

Julius Rukaria

in which he states initially there was

Meru HCCA No. 108 of 2008

which was withdrawn and later a

Tigania Law Courts CC No. 101 of 2005

that was dismissed on account of res judicata.

3. It is averred the applicant sought for and was granted inhibition orders in

Tigania CC No.101 before

the said case was dismissed.

4. Once a suit is dismissed it is obvious whatever interim orders were existing stand vacated. So if the same party is the one who filed and was issued with orders of inhibition all what he needs to do is to supply the Land Registrar with a decree showing the matter in which inhibition was issued is finalized one way or the other.

5. The applicant has annexed JNR – 11a, a search for the land parcels in issue, which indicates the lifespan of the inhibition orders:

“is until civil suit No. 101 in the R.M’s court at Tigania is heard and determination see order dated 6.6.06

.”

6. Section 70

of the

Land Registration Act

provides an inhibition shall not be cancelled except on the expiration of the time stated in the inhibition or by a consequent order of the court. In the instant case, both spelt out in the inhibition has expired and a consequent order of dismissal of the suit made. All what remains is to bring to the attention of the Land Registrar the said developments.

7. There is no indication that the

Land Registrar Meru

has been supplied with a certified copy of the decree in the aforesaid suit and declined to remove the inhibition.

8. This court is not convinced that applicants has made any efforts to take the appropriate action. That notwithstanding and guided by

Section 1A, 1B and 3A

of the

Civil Procedure Act

, it is in the interest of justice to lift the inhibition order due to effluxion of time and settlement of the suit as submitted.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MERU THIS 17

TH

DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

In presence of:

No appearance for parties

Court Assistant - Kananu

HON. C.K. NZILI

ELC JUDGE