James Mbugua Miring'u v The District Land Registrar, Kiambu & The Attorney General

map sheet number 11 issued on 14 th January 2025 pending the hearing inter partes hereof; iv. An injunction does issue in the first instance for 14 days or as the Court may direct against the defendant, jointly and severally, their agents, employees, servants’ successors and assigns, one Loise Nyambura Mwangi, a broker and a Land Registrar, Ruth Nyamongo from leasing, selling, alienating, trespassing and or charging Title Number Ndumberi/Riabai/4063, approximate area 0.2836 Ha. Registry map sheet number 11 issued on 14 th January 2025 pending the determination of this Suit; and v. Cost of the Application. 2. The Application is premised on the Applicant’s contention that he is the registered proprietor approximate area of 0.2836 Title Ha. Number Registry Ndumberi/Riabai/4063, map sheet number 11 (hereinafter the “Suit Property”). He states that a title deed in his name was issued on 14th January 2025 by Ruth Nyamongo, who at the time of filing of the Suit, the Land Registrar, Kiambu County. He maintains that he has since enjoyed peaceful physical possession of the Suit Property. 3. The Applicant’s grievance, however, is that despite the issuance of the title, the original title deed has not been released to him. He alleges that the 1st Respondent has withheld the title and that a demand for Kshs. 300,000 was made through Loise Nyambura Mwangi, whom he THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 2

page 2 of 17

describes as an alleged broker and agent of the 1 st Respondent. He consequently contends that there is no lawful basis for the continued withholding of his title deed or interference with his proprietary rights. 4. The Applicant relies on section 26 of the Land Registration Act and maintains that his certificate of title constitutes prima facie evidence of proprietorship. He contends that no fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, procedural impropriety or corrupt scheme on his part has been demonstrated so as to displace the protection accorded to a registered proprietor under the law. 5. The Applicant disputes the existence and nature of the complaint which, according to the 1st Respondent, prompted the withholding of the title. He questions the identity of the alleged complainant and maintains that no complaint concerning the issuance of the title or the requisite Land Control Board consent was lodged either at the Land Registry or before the relevant Land Control Board. He further contends that the 1st Respondent relied on Land Control Board records for October, November and December 2024, whereas the relevant meeting concerning the suit property was held on 11 th September 2024. His attempts to obtain the register for that meeting, he states, have not borne fruit. 6. The Applicant further avers that, apprehensive of possible interference with the Suit Property, a restriction was registered against the title. He THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 3

page 3 of 17

maintains that this was necessary in view of his uncertainty concerning the intended dealings with the property. 7. As regards the history of the Suit Property, the Applicant states that it forms part of the share of land bequeathed to him by his deceased father. He further states that disputes concerning the distribution of the property amongst himself and his five siblings were addressed by the National Land Commission, Kiambu County, in June 2018. In support of this contention, he relies on the Commission’s report dated 18 th June 2018, referenced NLC-KC/PC/TD/299/17. 8. The Applicant disputes the relevance of other disputes referred to by the 1st Respondent. He maintains that those disputes did not concern the suit property or his title. He also contends that his mother, Elizabeth Mwihaki Miringu, has no claim over the suit property and is not a party to the proceedings. His position is that the 1 st Respondent cannot advance a claim on behalf of a person who has not been joined to the suit. 9. On the interlocutory relief sought, the Applicant contends that there is a real risk that the Defendants, their agents or persons acting through them may lease, sell, alienate, trespass upon or charge the suit property unless restrained by the Court. He maintains that such dealings would expose him to irreparable loss, including the possible loss of possession and ownership of the suit property, which he contends cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 4

page 4 of 17

10. The Respondents opposed the Application through Grounds of Opposition dated 21st October 2025 and the Replying Affidavit by Ruth Nyamongo, on 7th November 2025. Their case is that the Application is misconceived, frivolous and founded upon a misrepresentation of material facts. They contend that there are active investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations concerning the conveyance of the Suit Property, which, in their view, raise legitimate questions regarding the validity of the transfer and consequently justified the withholding of the title. 11. Central to the Respondents’ opposition is the contention that, after the transfer had been effected and the title issued in the Applicant’s name, the Lands Office received a complaint that Elizabeth Mwihaki Miringu, said to be the transferor and the Applicant’s mother, had neither signed the application for Land Control Board consent nor the transfer documents. The Respondents rely on the Land Control Board register and other material annexed to the 1 st Respondent’s affidavit in support of their contention that the circumstances surrounding the transfer required clarification. 12. The Respondents consequently contend that the withholding of the title was not arbitrary but was undertaken in response to the complaint and pending clarification of the circumstances under which the Applicant was registered as proprietor. They further state that investigations concerning the conveyance of the Suit Property were THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 5

page 5 of 17

undertaken by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and that the original title was surrendered to the National Police Service for purposes of investigation before being returned on 16 th September 2025. 13. The Respondents maintain that the 1st Respondent acted within her statutory mandate in withholding the title pending clarification of the circumstances surrounding the transfer. In that regard, they rely on section 14 of the Land Registration Act and Regulations 22 and 34 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, which they contend empower the Land Registrar to make inquiries, summon persons and require additional documents or evidence before proceeding with registration. They also rely on the decision in Republic v Land Registrar, Kiritiri & another; Nthiga & another (Ex parte Applicants) [2025] KEELC 18527 (KLR) in support of their position concerning the Registrar’s role where questions arise regarding the root or transmission of title. 14. The Respondents further oppose the Application on the basis that the Applicant has not established a prima facie case. They contend that the Applicant has not demonstrated infringement of a legally protected right and that the withholding of the title was undertaken in response to a complaint concerning the authenticity and validity of the transfer documents. They also deny that the Applicant has produced evidence substantiating his allegation that the 1st Respondent demanded payment of Kshs. 300,000 before releasing the title. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 6

page 6 of 17

15. On irreparable harm, the Respondents contend that the Applicant has not demonstrated any injury that cannot adequately be compensated by damages. They point out that the Applicant is already registered as proprietor of the suit property and maintain that the issue is merely the temporary withholding of the physical title deed pending investigations. On the balance of convenience, they urge the Court to maintain the existing position so as not to interfere with the ongoing investigations into the circumstances of the transfer and the authenticity of the documents relied upon to effect the registration. 16. The Respondents also rely on the statutory functions of the National Police Service and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and refer to section 103 of the Land Registration Act, which creates offences relating, among other matters, to the fraudulent procurement of registration or issuance of title and the making of false statements or provision of false information in land transactions. Their position is that the investigations are therefore within the lawful mandate of the relevant authorities and ought to be allowed to proceed. 17. In addition to opposing the Application, the Respondents urged the Court to direct that Elizabeth Mwihaki Miringu, being the alleged transferor, be joined to the proceedings so as to clarify the circumstances surrounding the impugned transfer. This request was made in the course of the Respondents’ submissions. I note, however, that no formal application for joinder has been placed before the Court. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 7

page 7 of 17

18. In his Further Affidavit sworn on 24th November 2025, the Applicant responded to the matters raised by the Respondents and placed additional documents before the Court. These included records from the Deputy County Commissioner concerning the date of the Land Control Board meeting and the issuance and collection of the consent, his letter dated 12th November 2025 seeking the Land Control Board register for the meeting held on 11 th September 2024, the restriction request dated 9th May 2025, and the National Land Commission report of June 2018. Analysis and Determination 19. I have considered the Application, the affidavits filed by the parties, the documents annexed thereto and the submissions made before the Court. The issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established a basis for the Court to preserve the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. 20. The starting point is the nature of the relief sought. The Applicant has moved the Court principally for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents and the persons named in the Application from leasing, selling, alienating, trespassing upon or charging the suit property. The principles governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction are settled. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 8

page 8 of 17

21. In Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, the Court stated the three conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction: first, the Applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success; secondly, the Applicant must demonstrate that, unless the injunction is granted, he might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages; and thirdly, where the Court is in doubt, the application is to be determined on a balance of convenience. 22. The Court of Appeal subsequently restated and clarified those principles in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR. The Court emphasised that the three conditions are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles. Thus, an Applicant must first establish a prima facie case; only upon doing so does the Court proceed to consider irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience becomes relevant where the Court remains in doubt after considering the first two limbs. 23. The first question is whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case. The Court of Appeal in Nguruman adopted the definition in Mrao Ltd V First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others [2003] KLR 125, describing a prima facie case as one in which, on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal properly directing itself would conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed so as to call for an answer from the Respondent. The Court is not, at THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 9

page 9 of 17

this stage, required to conduct a mini-trial or make definitive findings on disputed questions of fact or law. 24. In the present case, the Applicant has produced evidence that he is the registered proprietor of Title Number Ndumberi/Riabai/4063, measuring approximately 0.2836 hectares. The title was issued in his name on 14 January 2025. His case is therefore not founded merely upon an asserted or anticipated interest in the suit property; he places before the Court an existing registered interest. 25. That fact assumes particular significance in light of section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act. The provision recognises the certificate of title as prima facie evidence that the person named therein is the absolute and indefeasible owner, subject to the statutory exceptions relating, among other matters, to fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is proved to have been a party, or where the title is shown to have been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. 26. I am cognisant of the Respondents’ contention that the Applicant's registration is itself under question. Their case is that the Lands Office received a complaint that Elizabeth Mwihaki Miringu, whom they identify as the transferor, did not execute the application for Land Control Board consent or the transfer documents. They further rely on the Land Control Board records and the ongoing investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 10

page 10 of 17

27. Those allegations raise matters which will require determination upon hearing the evidence. They do not, however, at this interlocutory stage, extinguish the legal effect of the Applicant's existing registration. The Respondents have not placed before this Court a final determination impeaching the Applicant's title. What they have placed before the Court are allegations, documentary material which they contend raises questions concerning the transfer, and evidence of ongoing investigations. 28. It is important not to conflate a challenge to a title with a determination that the title is invalid. The former gives rise to a triable issue; the latter is a finding that can only properly be made after the parties have had an opportunity to present their evidence and the Court has evaluated that evidence. The present application is not the occasion for finally determining whether Elizabeth Mwihaki Miringu executed the transfer documents, whether the requisite Land Control Board consent was validly obtained, or whether any person procured the Applicant's registration fraudulently or through an illegal or unprocedural process. 29. The Respondents' contention that the transferor should be joined to explain the circumstances of the transaction does not alter that position. In any event, the request for joinder was made in submissions and no formal application for such joinder is presently before the Court. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 11

page 11 of 17

30. On the material presently before me, therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated a registered proprietary interest which is prima facie protected by law. The competing allegations concerning the manner in which that interest was acquired do not, without a final determination, displace the prima facie evidential value of the registered title. I accordingly find that the Applicant has established a prima facie case. 31. The second question is whether, if the property is not preserved, the Applicant stands to suffer injury which cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages. 32. The Applicant asserts that unless restrained, the Respondents or persons acting through them may sell, lease, alienate, trespass upon or charge the suit property. The concern is not merely the physical occupation of the property. The more fundamental concern is the possibility of further registrable dealings being undertaken in respect of property whose ownership is already the subject of litigation. 33. The Respondents argue that there can be no irreparable injury because the Applicant is already registered as proprietor and the only issue is the withholding of the physical title deed pending investigations. I do not find that submission entirely responsive to the relief sought. The Applicant's concern is not confined to possession of the physical title document. It concerns the preservation of the proprietary interest represented by the registration itself. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 12

page 12 of 17

34. Land is a unique subject of proprietary rights. More importantly in the present case, if further dealings were registered before the dispute concerning the Applicant's title is determined, the resultant transactions could introduce third-party interests and complicate the subject matter of the litigation. A subsequent transfer, charge, lease or subdivision could materially alter the character of the property and potentially multiply the disputes requiring resolution. 35. The purpose of interlocutory relief is not to determine the parties' ultimate rights but to preserve the subject matter so that the Court's final determination remains effective. The courts have recognised that interlocutory injunctive relief is ancillary to the substantive cause of action and serves, among other purposes, to preserve the subject matter pending determination of the parties' rights. 36. I am therefore satisfied that the threatened injury in this case is sufficiently particularised. If the suit property is permitted to undergo further dealings while the dispute concerning the validity of the Applicant's registration remains unresolved, the substratum of the suit may be altered before the Court determines the parties' rights. That is a form of prejudice which is not adequately addressed merely by an award of damages. 37. The Respondents' position is that the existing position should be maintained to enable the investigations into the circumstances of the transfer to proceed without interference. The Applicant, on the other THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 13

page 13 of 17

hand, seeks protection against further dealings with property in respect of which he is presently the registered proprietor. 38. In my view, the appropriate course is not to choose between the Applicant's proprietary interest and the Respondents' investigative mandate. Both can be accommodated. The property can be preserved without preventing the competent authorities from investigating the circumstances surrounding its transfer. 39. This brings me to the nature of the order that ought properly to issue. 40. Although the Application is framed principally as one for an interlocutory injunction, the Court must have regard to the substance of the protection sought. The Applicant seeks to prevent further dealings with the suit property pending the determination of the dispute. The Land Registration Act provides a specific statutory mechanism for achieving precisely that objective 41. Section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act provides that the Court may make an order, referred to as an inhibition, inhibiting for a particular time, until the occurrence of a particular event or generally until further order, the registration of any dealing with any land, lease or charge. Section 68(2) requires a sealed copy of the order, containing particulars of the affected property, to be sent to the Registrar for registration in the appropriate register. Section 68(3) provides that an inhibition does not bind or affect the land until it has been registered. THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 14

page 14 of 17

42. The purpose of an inhibition is therefore directly applicable to the circumstances before the Court. In Peter Kariuki Njue v Severina Njira Kithumbu & another [2020] eKLR, the Court observed that an inhibition is intended to prohibit further dealings with the suit property and recognised the Court's duty to preserve property which is the subject of a dispute so that it is not alienated before the parties' rights are conclusively determined. 43. Similarly, in Japhet Kaimenyi M'Ndutho v M'ndatho M'Mbwiria [2012] eKLR, the Court identified the relevant considerations for an inhibition as including the risk that the property may be disposed of, alienated or transferred to the detriment of the Applicant, whether refusal of the inhibition would render the suit nugatory, and whether the Applicant has an arguable case. 44. Those considerations substantially correspond with the concerns that arise under the interlocutory injunction principles. Having found that the Applicant has established a prima facie proprietary interest and demonstrated a real risk of prejudice through further dealings with the suit property, the Court is satisfied that preservation is warranted. 45. I do not, however, consider it appropriate to issue an order personally restraining the Land Registrar from performing her statutory functions. The dispute before the Court does not require the Registrar to be prohibited from exercising the powers conferred upon her by the THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 15

page 15 of 17

Land Registration Act. What requires protection is the status of the suit property pending determination of the dispute. 46. An inhibition under section 68 is therefore the more precise and legally appropriate form of relief. It prevents the registration of further dealings with the suit property without purporting to restrain the Registrar from carrying out her lawful statutory functions. It also leaves the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and other competent authorities at liberty to undertake any lawful investigations concerning the circumstances of the transfer. 47. I therefore find that the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for interlocutory protection. The appropriate order is not a personal injunction against the Land Registrar but an inhibition directed at the registration of dealings with the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the suit or further order of the Court. 48. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 23rd September 2025 is allowed to the extent set out below: a. An inhibition is hereby issued pursuant to section 68(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, pending the hearing and determination of this suit or further orders of this Court, the registration of any dealing with Title Number Ndumberi/Riabai/4063, approximate area 0.2836 Ha. Registry map sheet number 11 issued on 14th January 2025 THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 16

page 16 of 17

b. The inhibition shall extend to any transfer, sale, lease, charge, subdivision, transmission or other registrable dealing affecting the suit property. c. For avoidance of doubt, the inhibition shall not prevent the Land Registrar and or any other competent authority from undertaking or completing any lawful inquiry and investigation concerning the Suit Property or the circumstances of its acquisition. d. Costs of the Application shall be in the cause It is so ordered. Dated, Signed and Delivered, virtually at Malindi this 23 rd day of September 2026 …………….………….. J. M. ONYANGO JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Odhiambo for the Plaintiff/Applicant No appearance for the Defendant/Respondent Court Assistant: Happy THIKA ELCLC E192 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 17

page 17 of 17