Lilian Jelimo v Nancy Chelimo Tangu & another [2017] KEELC 3479 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kitale court refused to remove a restriction on disputed land, saying it must stay until the case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the restriction order registered against the suit land should be deregistered
The application for deregistration was dismissed; the registration of the order in the Lands Registry was to remain until determination of the suit.
The order was made on the plaintiff's own application and bound both parties, reflecting the court's view that preservation of the suit property was paramount. The supporting affidavit adduced no new facts and no particulars of loss. Deregistration would not affect the subsistence of the order on the court record and might expose the land to dealings detrimental to the suit. The public is appropriately notified of the dispute by the registration. In any event, the plaintiff offered no explanation for the almost six-year delay since registration on 12th March, 2010.
Effect of inordinate and unexplained delay on an interlocutory application
The unexplained delay of almost six years between registration of the order (12th March, 2010) and the application (30th June, 2016) weighed against the grant of relief.
The court noted that two other applications had already been filed and determined and the plaintiff had testified in the matter, yet she came to court almost six years after the order was registered without seeking to explain the delay. Unexplained delay undermines the assertion that it is in the interest of justice to disturb the status quo pending determination of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A party who obtained an order of restriction on dealings with suit land, which binds all parties and preserves the subject matter of the suit, cannot lightly procure its deregistration before the suit is determined, especially without adducing new facts or explaining inordinate delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 30th June, 2016 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application were awarded to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court over an interlocutory application in a suit pending before it (no specific constitutional or statutory provision stated)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lilian Jelimo v Nancy Chelimo Tangu & another [2017] KEELC 3479 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3479/eng@2017-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.