Sosiani Builders Ltd v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4256 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An El-doret court ruled that land restrictions cannot sit on a title forever, and ordered removal of a 12-year-old restriction blocking an Eldoret property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the restriction lodged on 05.06.2012 met the criteria in Section 76 of the Land Registration Act
The restriction did not specify the period, event or further order for which it was to endure, and no sufficient explanation was offered by the 2nd and 3rd defendants; it should be removed
Section 76(2) requires a restriction to endure for a particular period, until occurrence of a particular event, or until a further order. The impugned restriction specified none of these. The criminal case arising from the alleged fraud ended in acquittal of all accused. The 2nd defendant never entered appearance to justify the restriction, and DW2 conceded the restriction had since been removed. Indefinite retention would violate Article 40 property rights.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought
Yes, except general damages which was not proved
Having found that the plaintiff proved its claim on the balance of probabilities and that the restriction was unjustified, the court granted the declaratory order, removal of the restriction and permanent injunction. General damages failed for want of proof. The court noted the plaintiff had used the title to secure a loan from Prime Bank.
Costs
The plaintiff, being the successful party, is entitled to costs, to be borne by the 5th defendant
The general rule is that costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. Since the plaintiff proved its case against the defendants on a balance of probabilities, costs were awarded to the plaintiff, with the 5th defendant - the only participating defendant - bearing them.
Legal principles established
#- Restrictions are not intended to endure indefinitely; they should only hold a property in abeyance as the underlying issue is resolved
- A restriction lodged without a stated duration, event or further order, and unexplained for over a decade, unjustifiably interferes with proprietary rights protected by Article 40 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.A Declaration that the restriction imposed on the parcel of land ELDORET MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 12/144 is oppressive, unjustified and unlawful
- 2.An order directing the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County to remove the restriction imposed on 5th June 2012 over the parcel of land ELDORET MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 12/144
- 3.An order of permanent injunction as per paragraph 13 of the plaint
- 4.Costs of the suit to be borne by the 5th Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act - upon application of a proprietor affected by a restriction, the court may order it removed, varied or other order as it deems fit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sosiani Builders Ltd v Chief Land Registrar & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC CASE NO. 111 OF 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4256/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.