Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedCivil Case No. 325 of 2017· [2018] KEELC 4744 (KLR)

Samuel M’imangi M’laaru v Martin Murithi Maingi & another [2018] KEELC 4744 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 January 2018
LML. N. Mbugua
436 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Meru extended orders blocking any sale or transfer of two Meru land parcels until March 2018.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (L. N. Mbugua, ELC Judge) in Civil Case No. 325 of 2017. The plaintiff, suing through a next friend, sought extension of interim orders granted on 19 December 2017 restraining the 2nd Defendant, the Land Registrar, Maua Land Registry, from alienating, subdividing, selling, mortgaging, charging or dealing with NJIA/KIEGOI/176 and NJIA/CIA MWENDWA/3460 pending further orders. The orders had initially been granted ex parte under a Certificate of Urgency pursuant to Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act. The 1st Defendant objected to the extension, contending that the orders contradicted a ruling by the High Court in Nairobi Misc. Application No. 106 of 2017 (an order by Judge Farah Amin annexed as JKM 1) and amounted to duplication. The plaintiff responded that three weeks after the Nairobi order of 7 August 2017, the 1st Defendant had transferred the property to himself. The court declined to make any finding on the alleged contradiction with the Nairobi ruling because that ruling had not been availed to it. Comparing the Farah Amin order of 07:08:17 - directed to all family members and mainly dealing with income accruing from the suit properties - with the present order, directed at the 2nd Defendant and meant solely to preserve the land from alienation, the judge found no contradiction. The interim orders of 19:12:17 were extended until 07:03:18, with the hearing of the application set for that date. No costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interim orders in this matter contradict the order of 07:08:17 by Judge Farah Amin

Holding

No contradiction exists; the Nairobi order was directed at all family members and dealt with income from the suit properties, whereas this order is directed at the 2nd Defendant to prevent alienation of the land

Reasoning

The court compared the scope and addressees of the two orders. The Nairobi order of 07:08:17 was directed to all members of the family and concerned income accruing from the suit properties. The order in the present matter is directed to the 2nd Defendant (Land Registrar) and is meant only to preserve the land from alienation pending hearing. The court therefore found no contradiction and extended the interim orders.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court cannot rule on a contradiction with another ruling not availed to it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The interim orders granted on 19:12:17 restraining alienation of NJIA/KIEGOI/176 and NJIA/CIA MWENDWA/3460 were extended until 07:03:18

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63

Cases cited (1)

  • Nairobi Misc. Application No. 106 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers under Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel M’imangi M’laaru v Martin Murithi Maingi & another [2018] KEELC 4744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Case No. 325 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4744/eng@2018-01-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.