SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mbarak v Freedom Limited (Civil Appeal E028 of 2022) [2024] KECA 160 (KLR) (23 February 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KECA 160 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
160
Citation
[2024] KECA 160 (KLR)
Decided
23 February 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at MombasaCoramA. A., GV ODUNGA, Matheka, Mbogo, Mr., N. A. Matheka, Nelly A. Matheka, Nelly A. Matheka, Sichale
Holding

The Court affirmed the respondent's ownership and ordered the reconstruction of the registry records based on the documents in the respondent's possession.

Facts

The respondent claimed to be the registered proprietor of plot No. 1948 (Original No. 412/10) Section V Mainland North registered at the Land Titles Registry at Mombasa as CR 32564. The respondent petitioned for various orders, including an order directing the reconstruction of the title register and a declaration that failure to supply an official search certificate was a violation of the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Ownership of plot No. 1948 (Original No. 412/10) Section V Mainland North
  2. Interference with proprietary rights

Reasoning

The Court held that the respondent was the registered proprietor of the property and that the appellant's claims were unfounded. The Court also ordered the reconstruction of the registry records based on the documents in the respondent's possession.

Outcome

Affirmed the respondent's ownership and ordered the reconstruction of the registry records.

Orders

  • Order directing the reconstruction of the registry records based on the documents in the respondent's possession

Remedies

  • Reconstruction of registry records

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Land Registration Act 2012
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.4 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case