LWG v BGG & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 807 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court froze dealings on disputed land for one year but refused to pause the ongoing case, telling the owner to pursue her suit quickly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an order of inhibition under Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 was warranted
The inhibition order was granted for one year to preserve the suit property pending the appeal
The court found a real risk of the suit property being transferred to the 3rd Respondent or subsequent purchasers since a sale agreement dated 05.04.2023 existed though no transfer was registered. Refusal might render the Appellant's main prayer in the pending suit nugatory, and her claim was not frivolous or fanciful. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the contested matrimonial-property claim.
Whether a stay of the Appellant's own suit pending the interlocutory appeal should be granted
Stay of proceedings declined; the Appellant directed to prosecute her suit expeditiously
The court found it strange that a litigant would seek to stay her own suit to pursue an interlocutory appeal on a discretionary interlocutory decision. Since inhibition was granted, preservation was achieved without paralysing the trial. Courts should not encourage litigants to park suits at first instance while chasing interlocutory appeals.
Costs of the application
Costs in the appeal
Although costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the appeal itself remained pending, so the court ordered costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal rather than award them to either side immediately.
Legal principles established
#- In an application for an order of inhibition under Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, the applicant must show that the suit property is at risk of alienation, that refusal would render the suit nugatory, and that the applicant has an arguable case.
- A litigant should prosecute a claim expeditiously in line with the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act rather than seek a stay of their own suit to pursue interlocutory appeals.
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court directs otherwise.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of inhibition be and is hereby made under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 to prevent any dealings with Title No. Nyandarua/Ol Joro Orok Salient/4360 for a period of one (1) year from the date hereof.
- 2.The prayer for stay of proceedings in Nyahururu ELC No. E008/2023 is declined and the Appellant is directed to expeditiously prosecute the said suit to its logical conclusion.
- 3.Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
- On appeal from
- Nyahururu Chief Magistrate's Court (ELC)
- ELC Case No. E008 of 2023, LWG -vs- BGG, the Land Registrar Nyahururu and Daniel Kiruri Kuruga
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50(1) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21); Rule 22 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 68 of the Land Registration Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "LWG v BGG & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 807 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Nyahururu ELC Case No. E008 of 2023 (interlocutory application in the appeal); notice of motion dated 03.10.2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/807/eng@2024-02-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.