Achiando v Registrar of Lands Migori & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4283 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that a land restriction placed without notice or cause cannot stay on a title indefinitely and must be removed.
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 restriction placed on L.R No. Kamagambo/Kabuoro/6387 by the 1st Respondent on 8th August 2016 should be removed
- 2.who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the restriction registered on 8th August 2016 over L.R. No. Kamagambo/Kabuoro/6387 should be removed
The restriction was removed because it lacked any demonstrated factual or legal basis, was placed without notice or hearing to the Applicant, and had subsisted indefinitely.
The Applicant proved registration and the subsisting restriction. Section 76 empowers the Registrar to place restrictions only for prevention of fraud or other sufficient cause, and Section 76(2) contemplates duration for a particular period or event. Neither Respondent could produce the complaint letter founding the restriction; the 1st Respondent did not respond at all, and the 2nd Respondent denied knowledge of the basis. The Applicant was never notified or heard, contrary to Section 77(1) and Article 50(1). Following Cheplaiti and other authorities, a restriction cannot endure indefinitely; Section 78(2) empowers the court to order removal.
Costs of the application
No order as to costs was made.
Although the Applicant prayed for costs, the court exercised discretion to make no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A restriction on a land title cannot subsist indefinitely; the Land Registration Act does not envisage an indefinite restriction placed without reasonable cause, which would violate the proprietor's constitutional right to property.
- A registered proprietor must be notified and given a hearing before a restriction is registered; failure to do so is procedurally improper and offends natural justice.
Court orders
#- 1.An order that the restriction registered on 8th August 2016 on all that parcel of land known as L.R. No. Kamagambo/Kabuoro/6387 by the 1st Respondent be removed forthwith
- 2.An order directing the national government Land Registrar, Migori County to rectify the register accordingly
- 3.There shall be no order as to costs
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
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court declined to award costs, making no order as to costs despite the Applicant's prayer
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
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.
An order is hereby issued that the restriction registered on 8th August 2016 on all that parcel of land known as L.R. No. Kamagambo/Kabuoro/6387 by the 1st Respondent be removed forthwith.
the said section does not envisage a restriction subsisting indefinitely. The Section does not also envisage a situation where a restriction is placed without a reasonable cause since doing so amounts to a violation of the registered proprietor's constitutional right to property.
Upon the application of a proprietor afiected by a restriction, and upon notice to the Registrar, the court may order a restriction to be removed, varied, or other order as it deems fit, and may make an order as to costs.
The Applicant was neither notified nor heard prior to registration of the restriction. Granted these circumstances, the court finds that there is no justification for the indefinite subsistence of the restriction placed on the Applicant's title.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistencies: the Applicant's further affidavit is described as 'sworn 16th March 2026' while the judgment is dated 9th July 2026, yet the 2nd Respondent's affidavit depones events of 25th April 2025 and 9th September 2025 which precede the stated application response chronology inconsistently; also the application is dated 24th July 2024 but the Applicant depones receiving the green card on '22nd April 2024' in one passage and annexes 'copy of green card dated 2nd April 2024' in another
The Applicant's deponement about when he learned of the restriction conflicts on dates: he states a search dated 23rd November 2020 revealed the restriction placed 8th August 2016, and elsewhere it is said nine years have lapsed since placement, which would place placement around 2017 rather than 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Achiando v Registrar of Lands Migori & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application (Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4283/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.