[2016] KEHC 5385 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 5385 (KLR)

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for removal of a caution on land title, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. Additionally, the original suit abated upon the defendant's death without substitution, and the decree is statute barred due...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 5385 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gichanga Karanja; Defendant: Njomo Karanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 183 of 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Jurisdiction Following Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; file ordered closed and archived.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Trusts in Land, Land Registration, Removal of Caution, Jurisdiction of Courts
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trusts in Land Land Registration Removal of Caution Jurisdiction of Courts

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gichanga Karanja

Plaintiff

Njomo Karanja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Jurisdiction Following Post Judgment Application

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for removal of a caution on land title after the matter was determined over 25 years ago.
  2. 2 Whether the application is properly before the court given the abatement of suit and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for removal of a caution on land title, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. Additionally, the original suit abated upon the defendant's death without substitution, and the decree is statute barred due to inaction for over 20 years. The application is therefore legally untenable, and the file must be closed as there is nothing pending for determination.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; file ordered closed and archived.

Orders

  • The application dated 25th February 2016 is struck out with no orders as to costs.
  • The file is to be closed and archived as there is nothing else pending for determination.