Muriuki & 3 others v Land Registrar, Kirinyaga County (Environment and Land Case 60 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 4874 (KLR)

The suit was finally determined on 19th May 2025 when the mediation settlement agreement was adopted as an order of the court, with advocates on record for all parties. The applicants then filed the application in person. Order 9 Rule 9 prohibits a party from acting in person after judgment without a court order or a consent with the outgoing advocate. The record showed no such application, notice or consent, rendering the application a nullity liable to be struck out.

The applicants' own affidavit showed knowledge of the Registrar's power to remove or vary restrictions. They nevertheless exhibited no evidence of having formally moved the Registrar before coming to court. The doctrine of exhaustion therefore barred the application insofar as the restrictions were concerned. The court, however, clarified that a restriction amounting to an injunction founded on a court order can only be lifted by the court, not the Registrar.

Because the application was a nullity for breach of Order 9 Rule 9 and was premature for non-exhaustion of the Registrar's statutory remedy, the court held those findings sufficient to dispense with the application without examining the merits of whether the applicants had established a reasonable case for lifting the restrictions and injunction.

The applicants sued the respondent without first complying with section 78 of the Land Registration Act, causing the respondent to incur costs in instructing counsel and filing grounds of opposition. Applying the principle that costs follow the event, the court found no good reason to depart from an order that the applicants bear the respondent's costs.