[2022] KEELC 736 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 736 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the suit property and that there is no pending litigation involving the land after the previous suit was dismissed. The caution registered by the 2nd respondent was therefore wrongful, as it was not supported by any ongoing dispute or legal interest. Both...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 736 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Fredrick David Muema; Respondent: Land Registrar Makueni; Respondent: Francis Muisyo Maitha
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Removal of Caution, Land Registration, Procedure for Service on Government, Damages for Wrongful Caution
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Removal of Caution Land Registration Procedure for Service on Government Damages for Wrongful Caution

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick David Muema

Applicant

Land Registrar Makueni

Respondent

Francis Muisyo Maitha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether the caution registered by the 2nd respondent on land parcel Makueni/Unoa/2291 was wrongful.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents should be compelled to remove the caution on the applicant's land.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to damages under Section 75 of the Land Registration Act for wrongful caution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the suit property and that there is no pending litigation involving the land after the previous suit was dismissed. The caution registered by the 2nd respondent was therefore wrongful, as it was not supported by any ongoing dispute or legal interest. Both respondents were served but failed to respond or oppose the application. The court held that the caution should be removed and that the applicant is entitled to the orders sought. The court also noted the procedural irregularity in service on the 1st respondent, a government officer, but this did not affect the substantive merits of the application since the respondents did...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The caution registered on 19th June, 2020 by the 2nd respondent is declared wrongful.
  • The 1st and 2nd respondents are compelled to remove the caution lodged on land parcel No. Makueni/Unoa/2291 by the 2nd respondent on 19th June, 2020.