Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court ordered the 4th and 5th respondents to vacate the applicants' properties and issued a permanent injunction against them. The applicants, as registered owners, sought restoration of boundaries and security during the process. The court partially granted the application, declining to discharge previous orders but affirming ownership rights under the Land Registration Act.
Issues
- The court was asked to determine if it should order the respondents to visit the properties LR No Transmara/Kimintet "D"/1077 and LR No Transmara/Kimintet "D"/1078 to restore the original boundaries as claimed by the applicants. This included demarcating and re-establishing the boundaries of the suit properties.
- The court evaluated whether to discharge, vary, or set aside orders issued by another judge (Hon M I G Moranga) in ELC Case No E.078 OF 2021, which had directed the respondents not to interfere with the suit properties. The court ruled this could not be addressed via a miscellaneous application.
- The court considered whether to issue a permanent injunction against the 4th and 5th respondents (Joseph Kimoro and Land Adjudication Officer) to prevent them from trespassing, cutting trees, or otherwise interfering with the applicants' properties. This was based on the applicants' ownership rights under the Land Registration Act.
Holdings
- The court issued a permanent injunction against the 4th and 5th respondents, directing them to vacate the applicants' properties within 30 days and prohibiting trespassing, cutting trees, or interfering with the applicants' exclusive possession. This was based on the applicants' undisputed ownership under the Land Registration Act.
- The court granted prayers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, directing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents to visit and demarcate the properties LR No Transmara/Kimintet 'D'/1077 and 1078, file reports, and ensure security. Ground reports confirmed boundaries were restored, and respondents committed to vacate. These prayers are now spent.
- Prayer 8, seeking to discharge, vary, or set aside orders from ELC Case No E078 of 2021, was denied because the necessary documents from that case were not provided to the court for evaluation.
Remedies
- Issues a permanent injunction restraining the 4th and 5th respondents (and their agents/relatives) from accessing, trespassing, occupying, building, cutting trees, grazing cattle, or interfering with the applicants' properties in any manner.
- Directs the 4th and 5th respondents to vacate possession of the properties LR No Transmara/Kimintet 'D'/1077 and LR No Transmara/Kimintet 'D'/1078 within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
- No costs will be ordered in this application.
Legal Principles
The court applied statutory provisions under the Land Registration Act, No 3 of 2012 (specifically sections 24, 25, and 26) to enforce the sanctity of title documents and protect the registered owners' exclusive possession rights against unauthorized occupation.
Precedent Name
Kilgoris Spm ELC Case No E078 Of 2021
Cited Statute
Land Registration Act
Judge Name
Emmanuel M Washe
Passage Text
- A. The 4th and 5th Respondents ... vacate possession of any portion of land in their occupation within the Applicants properties ... within the next thirty (30) days from the date of this judgement. B. An order of permanent injunction be and is hereby issued against the 4th and 5th Respondents ... restraining them from accessing, trespassing ... interfering with the quiet occupation and/or possession of the properties ... C. There will be no orders as to costs in this Application.
- Section 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, No 3 of 2012 requires that the legal ownership of any person owning property must be protected at all times so as to uphold the sanctity of title documents and private rights.