Njoroge v Land Registrar, Naivasha & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E021 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 1258 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck down a land restriction imposed without notice or hearing, ordering the Registrar to lift it so the owner can finally receive compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Land Registrar followed mandatory statutory procedure under Section 76 of the Land Registration Act when registering the restriction
The Registrar did not: no notice was served on the Applicant and no hearing was afforded her, rendering the restriction a nullity under Article 47 of the Constitution (fair administrative action).
Section 76(1) of the Land Registration Act requires the Registrar, before making a restriction order, to direct inquiries to be made, serve notices and hear persons the Registrar considers fit. In this case the Applicant deponed, uncontroverted by any Replying Affidavit, that she was never served with notice before or after registration of the restriction. Relying on Matoya v Standard Chartered Bank, the court held the Registrar must not act on whim or caprice. An administrative act performed without a hearing violates Article 47 and is a nullity.
Whether there exists a valid, ongoing reason to maintain the restriction
No. The purported basis (a pending court case) was undisclosed and unproved; the 2nd Respondent had directed lifting of the restriction on 3rd July 2025; and the restriction was blocking the Applicant's constitutional right to prompt and full compensation under Article 40(3).
The restriction was said to relate to a pending court case, but neither the letter of 5th June 2024 nor the registry records disclosed any case number or details. The Respondents filed no response, so the Applicant's testimony stood uncontroverted. The Chief Land Registrar had by letter dated 3rd July 2025 directed that the restrictions be lifted, yet the 1st Respondent refused to comply. The restriction also blocked compensation for compulsory acquisition guaranteed under Article 40(3) of the Constitution, and could not remain in perpetuity.
Legal principles established
#- A restriction imposed without notice to and hearing of the affected proprietor, contrary to Sections 76 and 77 of the Land Registration Act and Article 47 of the Constitution, is a nullity.
- A restriction is a temporary measure and cannot be maintained indefinitely where no justification for its continued existence exists, particularly where the authority that requested it has directed its lifting.
Court orders
#- 1.An order directing the 1st Respondent (Land Registrar) to immediately lift and/or remove the restriction lodged against the parcel of land known as Longonot/Kijabe Block 6/347 (Kiambu Nyakinyua)
- 2.Costs of the application awarded on a lower scale since the application was undefended
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 76, 77 and 78(2) of the Land Registration Act; Rule 81 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Land Registrar, Naivasha & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E021 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 1258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1258/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.