Rithara v Mwamba & 2 others (Sued as the administrators of the Estate of M’Mwamba M’Munyua-Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8443 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru lifted a freeze (inhibitory order) on land parcel Abothuguchi/Gitie/183 because the case over it had already ended.
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 injunctive inhibitory order registered in the land register relating to Abothuguchi/Gitie/183 pending the hearing and disposal of the suit should be lifted, the suit having been determined by judgment dated 5/12/2024
Key legal issues
#Whether to lift the injunctive inhibitory order registered against the suit property after judgment in the main suit
The court allowed the unopposed application in terms of prayer 1, lifting the inhibitory order since the suit had been concluded by judgment dated 5/12/2024
The suit property, Abothuguchi/Gitie/183, was subject to an injunctive inhibitory order registered in the land register pending hearing and disposal of the suit. The suit was disposed of by the court's judgment dated 5/12/2024, so the applicant sought lifting of the order. The application was not opposed by the plaintiff. The court accordingly allowed the application in terms of prayer 1, with costs to the defendant/applicant.
Legal principles established
#- Where an application is unopposed, the court may allow it, as an inhibitory order pending hearing and disposal of a suit loses purpose once judgment has been delivered
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15/4/2025 is allowed in terms of prayer 1, lifting the injunctive inhibitory order registered in the land register relating to Abothuguchi/Gitie/183
- 2.The defendant/applicant shall have costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land within its register (suit property Abothuguchi/Gitie/183); specific provision not stated
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 application is not opposed. In the circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer 1.
The defendant/applicant shall have costs of the application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number of the suit and the application's number are not stated in the judgment
The specific terms of prayer 1 (the order allowed) are not reproduced in the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rithara v Mwamba & 2 others (Sued as the administrators of the Estate of M’Mwamba M’Munyua-Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8443 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 15/4/2025 in suit determined by judgment dated 5/12/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8443/eng@2025-12-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.