REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MOMBASA ELCLOM NO. E002 OF 2025 JANE NJERI KARANJA …………..……….………….…..…..……. APPLICANT =VERSUS= THE LAND REGISTRAR, MOMBASA …………….…..…… 1ST RESPONDENT ETHICS & ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ……….. 2ND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. Vide an originating motion dated 07.05.2025 expressed to be brought under Part II of the Fair Administrative Action Rules (2024) and all other enabling provisions of the law, the applicant sought the following reliefs against the 1st and 2nd respondents: a) That this honourable court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to remove the prohibitory orders registered against all that parcel of land known as MN/5043/1 CR 19534. b) That the costs of the application be borne by the respondents. 2. The motion was based upon the grounds set out on the face thereof and supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 07.05.2025 and the accompanying exhibits. The applicant pleaded that there were previous proceedings before the High MOMBASA ELCLOM E002 OF 2025 (JUDGMENT) Page 1
page 1 of 4
Court and the Anti-Corruption Court at Nairobi between her and the respondents whereby a preservatory or prohibitory order was issued against her title No. MN/5043/1/MN (the suit property) for a limited period of time. 3. It was her case that the said cases were amicably settled whereby a consent Judgment was recorded in Nairobi ACEC No.16 of 2017 on 08.05.2024 marking he matter as settled on the terms of the consent. It was pleaded that the resultant decree was duly extracted and served upon the Respondents but they had failed to lift the prohibitory order against the suit property in accordance with the terms of the decree. 4. The applicant contended that despite her due compliance with her obligations under the terms of the consent judgment the land registrar had failed or neglected to remove the prohibitory order registered against the suit property despite service of a demand and notice of intention to sue. 5. The court has noted that none of the respondents filed a response to the proceedings despite their advocates having requested for more time on 19.11.2025 to file their responses. The factual and legal basis of the applicant’s claim has not been disputed. The court is thus inclined to accept the applicant’s sworn affidavit that she has fully discharged her obligations under the terms of the consent Judgment and thereby entitled to MOMBASA ELCLOM E002 OF 2025 (JUDGMENT) Page 2
page 2 of 4
removal of any encumbrances which may still be subsisting in the 1st respondent’s register. 6. The court, however, finds no justification for filing the instant proceedings against the 2nd respondent which is not the keeper of the relevant register. The court is not satisfied that it is within the statutory authority of the 2nd respondent to remove the encumbrance complained of. That responsibility falls squarely within the mandate of the 1 st respondent under the Land Registration Act. As such, the court is not inclined to issue any prerogative order against the 2 nd respondent in the circumstances. 7. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the prerogative order sought but as against the 1st respondent only. As a result, the court makes the following orders for disposal of the originating motion dated 07.05.2025: a) An order granted of mandamus compelling be the and is hereby Land Registrar Mombasa to remove the prohibitory orders registered against the parcel known as subdivision No. 5043/1/MN (CR 19534) within 30 days upon service of the order. b) There shall be no order as to the costs since the proceedings were not defended. It is so decided. MOMBASA ELCLOM E002 OF 2025 (JUDGMENT) Page 3
page 3 of 4
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 Y. M. ANGIMA JUDGE In the presence of: No appearance for the Applicant No appearance for 1st and 2nd Respondents Court Assistant: Hinga MOMBASA ELCLOM E002 OF 2025 (JUDGMENT) Page 4
page 4 of 4