K-Unity Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Land Registrar, Kiambu & 3 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered the Land Registrar to lift an expired land restriction, confirming lenders can go straight to court when registrars ignore removal applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 4th Respondent's Preliminary Objection that the relief sought is administrative and should be pursued by judicial review is merited
- 2.Whether the Land Registrar, Kiambu should be compelled to lift the restriction registered against land parcel number Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/T.146
Key legal issues
#Whether the application should be struck out because the removal of a restriction is an administrative step triable only by judicial review
The Preliminary Objection failed because determining whether lifting the restriction is an administrative process requires examination of facts and the merit of the application, and thus is not a pure point of law.
Applying the Mukisa Biscuits test as endorsed by the Supreme Court in IEBC v Cheperenger, a preliminary objection must be a settled, crisp point of law capable of disposing of the suit on undisputed facts. Here, the question whether the process of lifting the restriction is administrative requires examination of the facts and merits, so the objection does not qualify. The court also noted it has discretion under section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act to order removal where the Registrar fails to act under section 78(1).
Whether the restriction registered against Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/T.146 should be lifted
Yes. The restriction was to endure only until judgment in Limuru Civil Suit No. 36 of 2015, which was concluded; the Registrar failed to act on the Applicant's application for removal and did not participate in the proceedings.
Under section 76(2) of the Land Registration Act a restriction may endure until the occurrence of a particular event. The restriction here was to remain in force pending judgment in the Limuru suit, which was concluded as evidenced by the decree. The Applicant, as chargee with a legal and proprietary interest, applied to the Registrar for removal on 7 October 2024 without response, and the Registrar failed to participate despite service. The court therefore exercised its discretion under section 78(2) and ordered the restriction lifted.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be founded on a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct; it cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised.
- Where the Land Registrar fails to act on an application under section 78(1) of the Land Registration Act, the court may, under section 78(2), order removal of a restriction.
Court orders
#- 1.The Land Registrar, Kiambu, is ordered to lift the Restriction placed on land parcel number Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/T.146 within 21 days, failing which it stands removed by the order
- 2.The 1st Respondent shall bear the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act - power of the court, on application of a proprietor affected by a restriction, to order its removal or variation
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Land Registrar, Kiambu, is hereby ordered to lift the Restriction placed on the land parcel number Gatamaiyu/Kagwe/T.146 within 21 days hereof failure to which it stands removed by this order
The 1st Respondent shall bear the Costs this application.
The green card is indeed an authoritative record of the history of the land and registered encumbrances thereon.
The Applicant therefore rightfully brings this application as a party with legal and or proprietary interest in the suit property.
Issues in the judgment
#The Notice of Preliminary Objection is dated 25th February 2026 while the application was filed 8th January 2025; the date '2026' may be a typographical error, but the judgment consistently uses '25th February 2026'.
No case number or neutral citation appears on the judgment identifying the suit.
Duplicated figure in the suit number: 'Limuru Civil Suit No. 36 of 36 of 2015'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "K-Unity Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Land Registrar, Kiambu & 3 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion application dated 8th January 2025 (case number not stated on the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5143/eng@2026-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.