Kanyuru & another v Chief Land Registar (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3106 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment)

Kanyuru & another v Chief Land Registar (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3106 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3106 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2025 OA Angote, J May 21, 2026 Between Beatrice Kanyua Kanyuru 1st Applicant Marion Gitau 2nd Applicant and The Chief Land Registar Respondent Judgment 1.Before this court for determination is the Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 20th March, 2025 brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following reliefs:i.This Honorable Court be pleased to direct the Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi to remove the caveat registered on own motion against Land title No L.R 209/14309 IR. No 207763 on 17th April 2020.ii.The costs of this application be borne by the Respondent. 2.The Motion is based on the grounds thereof and supported by the affidavit of Beatrice Kanyua Kanyuru, the 1st Applicant of an even date who deponed that she and the 2nd Applicant are the registered owners of all that parcel of land known as L.R 209/14309 IR. No 207763 situate along Langata road in Nairobi County. 3.The 1st Applicant deposed that between 2017 and 2025, the suit property was the subject of litigation in various court matters and in particular, Nairobi ELC 125 of 2017 Golf Range Limited vs Registered Trustees of National Olympics Committed, Kipchoge Keino & 2 Others, Nairobi ELC E023 of 2020 Golf Range Limited v Marion Gitau & 7 Others and Nairobi ELC E249 of 2021 Kipchoge Keino& 2 Others v Marion Gitau &8 Others. 4.Following these disputes, it was deposed, on 17th April 2020, the Respondent on his own motion registered a caveat on the Applicants’ property claiming an interest under Section 76 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012. 5.Ms Kanyuru explained that they defended the aforesaid cases and consequently, Nairobi ELC 125 of 2017 was dismissed on 26th September 2018, Nairobi ELC E249 of 2021 was dismissed on 18th January 2024 and Nairobi ELC E023 of 2020 was dismissed on 23rd January 2025. 6.It was deposed that thereafter, vide a letter dated 12th March 2025, the 2nd Applicant requested the Respondent to remove the caveat and attached copies of the relevant judgments in support of the request. However, the Respondent declined to remove the caveat administratively and instead advised her to obtain a court order, thereby precipitating the present application. 7.The 1st Applicant urged that for over eight (8) years, they have been compelled to defend numerous court proceedings instituted with the aim of disentitling them of their property. Having successfully defended their title in the various matters, it is only just and fair that the orders sought be granted. 8.She maintained that no prejudice will be occasioned to the Respondent, whose role in placing the caveat was purely in the discharge of his statutory mandate and who has no proprietary interest in the suit property. She added that the Respondent had himself advised them to obtain a court order to facilitate the removal of the caveat. 9.The Respondent, responded to the Motion, through the affidavit of George Gitau, a Land Registrar in the Office of the Chief Land Registrar at Ardhi House, Nairobi dated 14th July, 2025. He deponed that his duties include registration of documents and providing instructions to the Attorney General in civil suits. 10.The Respondent explained the process of transfer and registration of private land, stating that it entails submission of transfer documents, valuation by the Chief Valuer, assessment and payment of stamp duty, endorsement of payment by the Collector of Stamp Duty, and eventual registration and dispatch of the title documents to the owner, with copies retained in the Deed file maintained by the Chief Land Registrar. 11.According to Mr Gitonga, the lease over L.R. No. 209/14309 in favour of Marion Wambui Gitau and Beatrice Kinyua Kanyuru dated 7th May, 2019 was registered on 4th June 2019 and a certificate of title issued as I.R. 207763/1 for a term of 99 years from 1st July 1999. 12.Vide an internal memo dated 17th April 2020, B.L. Long’olenyang, on behalf of the Chief Land Registrar, directed that a government restriction be placed over L.R. No. 209/14309 I.R. 207763 owing to an ongoing court dispute touching on the property. In response, a caveat claiming an interest under Section 76 of the Land Registration Act was subsequently registered on 17th April 2020. 13.He contended that the Applicants are guilty of material non-disclosure for failing to disclose the decision in Republic vs National Land Commission & 2 others; Gitau & 6 others (Interested Parties); Kipchoge Keino Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya & 2 others (Exparte) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 32 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 18374 (KLR), wherein the court quashed the National Land Commission’s decision of 20th March 2018 which had revoked the title of the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya, L.R No 209/15290 and directed issuance of a new grant to the Interested Parties to wit Marion Gitau, Agnes Kagira, Beatrice Kanyuru, Roland Kiogora, Wanjiru Kiongo, Slyvia Muthoni and Lisa Mwakazi. 14.It is the Respondent’s case that the court further issued an order of mandamus directing reinstatement of the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya’s title and deletion of the proceedings that had culminated in issuance of the Applicants’ title. As a consequence, Mr Gitonga urged, the continued existence of the Applicants’ title is questionable in law. 15.He asserted that the Applicants were fully aware that the title they claimed remained contested by the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya and that the appropriate course would have been to institute a substantive suit challenging that title rather than proceeding through a miscellaneous application. 16.Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Outa & another vs Okello & 5 others (Petition 10 of 2014) [2014] KESC 20 (KLR), he maintained that procedural law prescribes the proper form and process for instituting claims and that a miscellaneous application cannot properly resolve substantive issues relating to the impugned caveat. 17.Vide a supplementary affidavit dated 16th October 2025, the Applicants, through the 1st Applicant, averred that the Respondent’s allegations of non-disclosure regarding the decision in Republic vs National Land Commission & 2 others; Gitau & 6 others (Interested Parties); Kipchoge Keino Trustees National Olympic Committee Kenya & 2 others (Exparte) is disingenuous and intended to mislead the court. 18.He maintained that at the time of filing the present application, they were unaware of the outcome of the said matter, the judgment having not been communicated to them by their advocates then on record and that the aforesaid judgment was delivered on 22nd June 2023, approximately six (6) months before the delivery of the ruling in Nairobi ELC E249 of 2021 on 18th January 2024. 19.According to the 1st Applicant, paragraph 66 of the latter ruling still referred to Nairobi ELC JR No. 32 of 2018 as pending determination and, in the absence of any communication from their then advocates regarding the delivery of the judgment, they had no reason to believe that the matter had already been concluded. 20.She further stated that the Chief Land Registrar was the 3rd Respondent in Nairobi ELC JR No. 32 of 2018 and, having been a party to those proceedings, was presumed to have been fully aware of the outcome of the judgment. Nonetheless, she averred, the judgment in Nairobi ELC JR 32 of 2018, quashed the NLC decision then directing the cancellation of LR No 209/15290 (Original No 209/14151/2) and reinstated the same to its previous owners the Registered Trustee National Olympic Committee-Kenya. This title is distinct from their title as evinced by the official searches in respect of both L.R. No. 209/15290 (Original No. 209/14151/2) and L.R. No. 209/14309. 21.I was deposed by the 1st Applicant that the searches further revealed that both parcels continue to exist in the Land Registry as separate entries bearing different I.R. and L.R. numbers, distinct survey plans and separate ownership. In particular, L.R. No. 209/15290 (Original No. 209/14151/2) is registered in the name of the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya, whereas L.R. No. 209/14309 is registered in their names. 22.Additionally, it was urged, there is no entry in respect of the National Land Commission decision on L.R. No. 209/15290 signifying cancellation of the title as earlier directed, nor did their title, L.R. No. 209/14309, bear any corresponding registration numbers or indication that it originated from or was connected to L.R. No. 209/15290 (Original No. 209/14151/2). According to them, the Respondent had equally failed to demonstrate any nexus between the two parcels. 23.It was further averred that the outcome of Nairobi ELC JR No. 32 of 2018 merely resulted in the lifting of an inhibition that had been registered against L.R. No. 209/15290 (Original No. 209/14151/2) pursuant to a court order issued on 20th February 2018, and not the removal or cancellation of any National Land Commission decision, since no such entry had ever been registered against the title. 24.The Applicants maintained that the two parcels are separate and distinct properties and that the removal of the caveat registered against L.R. No. 209/14309 would have no bearing whatsoever on the ownership, status, or legal position of L.R. No. 209/15290 (Original No. 209/14151/2) just as the removal of the inhibition against L.R. No. 209/15290 pursuant to the Judicial Review decision did not affect the caveat registered against their property. 25.They further contended that it remained unclear why the Respondent continued insisting on maintaining the caveat over the suit property. They urged that if the Respondent asserts some interest, it should candidly disclose and substantiate it instead of, as they argued, continuing to rely on what they described as a non-existent ownership dispute 26.The Applicants further asserted that the present proceedings do not call upon the court to determine substantive questions of ownership against the Land Registrar. They maintained that neither the Judicial Review proceedings nor the earlier suits conclusively determined issues of ownership as between the two parcels and any aggrieved party remains at liberty to institute an appropriate substantive suit. Submissions 27.The Applicants filed submissions on 23rd February 2026 contending that the Respondent’s objection to the procedure adopted was misplaced. Counsel submitted that Sections 73(1) and (2) of the Land Registration Act empower both the court and the Registrar to order removal of a caution, and since the Act does not prescribe the mode of commencement, reliance could properly be placed on the procedure under Order 37 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Cited in support was Abdi Abdullahi Somo vs Ben Chikamai & 2 others[2016] KEHC 4283 (KLR). 28.Counsel also submitted that no substantive title dispute presently exists because neither the Judicial Review proceedings nor the previous suits that were dismissed resulted in any finding invalidating the Applicants’ title. 29.It was submitted that the Respondent is improperly relying on an unrelated parcel of land to impugn the Applicants’ title despite the conclusion of the earlier litigation and that official searches dated 18th July 2025 and 14th August 2025 confirmed that L.R. No. 209/15290 and L.R. No. 209/14309 remain separate and distinct parcels with different I.R. and L.R. numbers, separate survey plans and different proprietors. 30.Furthermore, it was submitted by counsel for the Applicants that the Respondent’s claim that the Applicants’ title is "untenable" due to an order of mandamus rescinding an NLC 2018 administrative decision is disingenuous and calculated to mislead this court, and that such an argument ignores the distinct identities of the properties and the subsequent judicial affirmations of the Applicants' proprietary interests. 31.As regards the allegation of non-disclosure, counsel submitted that the same is unwarranted since the Applicants had demonstrated that they were unaware of the outcome of the Judicial Review proceedings. The duty of disclosure, it was maintained, applies only to material facts uniquely within the knowledge of the parties and not to judicial decisions, which constitute public records and statements of the law under the doctrine of jura novit curia. 32.In support, counsel cited The King vs The General Commissioners for the Purposes of Income Tax Acts for the District of Kensington: Ex parte Princess Edmond De Polignac [1917] All E. R. 486 as quoted in Bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji vs al Noor Jamal & 2 others [1998] KECA 255 (KLR). 33.Counsel maintained that the Registrar’s Caveat placed on Title No. L.R. 209/14309 on 17th April 2020 has been rendered spent and/or redundant following the final determination of aforecited cases and its removal will cause no prejudice, and that its continued retention amounts to violation of the Applicants’ property rights under Article 40 and their right to a Fair Administrative Action under Article 47 of the Constitution. 34.The Respondent did not file submissions. (As at 16th May, 2026) Analysis and determination 35.Having considered the Motion, the sole issue for determination is whether the court should direct the Chief Land Registrar Nairobi to remove the caveat registered against Land title No L.R 209/14309 IR. No 207763 on 17th April 2020? 36.The court’s jurisdiction to direct the removal of a caveat is found in Section 73 of the Land Registration Act. Section 73(1) in particular provides that:“(1)A caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the court or, subject to subsection (2), by order of the Registrar.” 37.Section 2 of the Land Registration Act defines caution to include a caveat. It states:“caution" includes —(a) a notice in the form of a register to the effect that no action of a specified nature in relation to the land in respect of which the notice has been entered may be taken without first informing the person who gave the notice; or (b) a caveat. (emphasis added) 38.It is trite that a caution is intended as a temporary protective measure, designed to preserve the cautioner’s claimed interest pending the pursuit of appropriate relief through a civil suit or other legal proceedings. It is not meant to subsist indefinitely or remain on the register in perpetuity. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Boyes vs Gathure [1969] EA 385, a caveat is intended to serve two-fold purpose:“On the one hand, it is intended to give the caveator temporary protection, and on the other, it is intended to give notice of the nature of the claim to the person whose estate in the land is affected and to the world at large.” 39.The principles guiding removal of cautions are well settled. In Simon Kimemia Muthondu vs Moses Mugo Maringa [2017] eKLR, the court held that in considering an application for removal of a caution, it must examine the circumstances under which the caution was lodged, the interest claimed by the cautioner, and the prejudice likely to be suffered if the caution is removed. 40.Similarly, in Maria Nganga Gwako vs Charles Mwenzi Nganga, [2014] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that once a proprietor objects to a caution, the burden shifts to the cautioner to justify its continued existence; absent reasonable cause shown, the caution must be removed. The Applicants have asked this court to direct the Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi, to remove the caveat registered suo motu against L.R. 209/14309 I.R No. 207763 on 17th April 2020. 41.They state that they are the registered proprietors of the suit property and that the caveat was placed following disputes in Nairobi ELC No. 125 of 2017, Nairobi ELC No. E023 of 2020 and Nairobi ELC No. E249 of 2021. 42.According to the Applicants, all the said matters were dismissed and despite forwarding the judgments to the Respondent on 12th March 2025, the Respondent declined to remove the caveat. They contend that the caveat has since served its purpose and now unlawfully fetters their proprietary rights. 43.The Applicants further maintain that the decision in Republic vs National Land Commission & 2 others; Gitau & 6 others (Interested Parties); Kipchoge Keino Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya & 2 others (Exparte) [2023] KEELC 18374 (KLR) concerned L.R No. 209/15290 and not their parcel L.R No. 209/14309. 44.They assert that both parcels remain separately registered with distinct I.R numbers, survey plans and ownership records. According to them, there exists no nexus between the two parcels capable of justifying the continued retention of the caveat over their title. 45.On its part, the Respondent maintains that the caveat was lawfully placed owing to an ongoing dispute affecting the suit property. The Respondent contends that the Applicants failed to disclose the judgment in Republic vs National Land Commission & 2 others; Gitau & 6 others (Interested Parties); Kipchoge Keino Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya & 2 others (Exparte) [2023] KEELC 18374 (KLR), which reinstated the title of the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya. It is the Respondent’s position that the legality and continued existence of the Applicants’ title therefore remains questionable. 46.The Respondent further argues that the dispute raises substantive issues relating to ownership and validity of title which cannot properly be determined through a miscellaneous application. According to the Respondent, the Applicants ought to have instituted a substantive suit rather than the present proceedings. 47.As aforesaid, Sections 71 to 73 of the Land Registration Act provide the statutory framework governing cautions. Section 71 permits a person claiming an interest in land capable of registration under the Act to lodge a caution forbidding dealings over the affected property. Section 72 in turn provides for notification to the proprietor and bars registration of inconsistent dealings for as long as the caution subsists unless by consent of the cautioner or order of the court. 48.Section 73 of the Act provides for the withdrawal and removal of cautions. Under subsection (1), a caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner, removed by order of the court, or removed by the Registrar subject to the procedure stipulated under subsection (2). The section however does not prescribe the specific procedural mode through which an application for removal of a caution is to be presented before the court. 49.In the absence of an expressly prescribed procedure under Section 73, this court is of the view that recourse may properly be had to the procedure under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules to wit vide an Originating Summons or even a Miscellaneous Application. The court notes that miscellaneous applications are generally utilized where no substantive suit exists between the parties and where the court is called upon to exercise a limited statutory or procedural jurisdiction. 50.As explained in Orego Odhiambo Advocates vs Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission [2026] KEHC 1005 (KLR), miscellaneous applications are typically used for resolution of procedural issues, generally to seek court’s indulgence or orders that are ancillary to agreements and/or uncontested matters. 51.Earlier on, the court in Simon Mayaka vs Land Registrar, Kisii & Another [2013] KEHC 3540 (KLR) had deponed:“I am of the opinion that the practice of instituting suits by way of miscellaneous applications may fall under the latter, namely, under Order 48 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This procedure has been in use in the High Court and lower court over the years for particular applications and may be deemed to have been made by the court through usage.... In my view, section 89 of the Civil Procedure Act mainly extends the application of the civil procedure rules as relates to suits to other proceedings before courts exercising civil jurisdiction where applicable. Although the marginal note to that section has the words “miscellaneous proceedings”, the section does not state that any particular suit may be brought by way of a miscellaneous application. The section provides that civil procedure rules relating to suits may be applied where appropriate to other proceedings before courts exercising civil jurisdiction even where such proceedings cannot be strictly referred to as a suit. These are the proceedings which in my view are referred to as miscellaneous proceedings in the said marginal note. The section therefore acknowledges miscellaneous proceedings and extends the civil procedure rules relating to suits to them where applicable but falls short of clearly coming out as being the source of such proceedings. As rightly observed by my brother Justice Munyao Sila in the case of Joseph Kibowen Chemjor –vs-William K. Kisera [2013]eKLR, miscellaneous applications have been used in practice mostly for moving the court where facts are not contested and private rights of the parties are not up for determination like where violation of public law rights are being advocated or the discretion of the court is being sought or where a procedural issue or step is sought to be endorsed. The relief to be sought in such application must be one that does not settle any private rights or obligations of the parties. It follows therefore that where there is a dispute as to private rights of the parties which the court is to be called upon to determine, such dispute cannot be brought to court by way of a miscellaneous application.” 52.Considering the Respondent’s contentions, the issue before the court is not whether a plea for removal of a caveat or restriction may properly be commenced through the present procedure, rather whether, in the circumstances of this case, such a summary approach is merited in light of the alleged substantive and contested issues. 53.The Applicants have relied on three previous proceedings which, according to them, informed the placement of the caveat over the suit property and which they contend have since been dismissed or otherwise concluded without any determination invalidating their title. 54.The first matter was Nairobi ELC 125 of 2017 Golf Range Limited vs Registered Trustees of National Olympics Committed in which Golf Range Limited sought, inter alia, declarations that it had acquired title to L.R. No. 209/15290 through adverse possession arising from its alleged occupation of the land by the Carnivore Restaurant for over thirty years. 55.The court dismissed the claim after finding, among other things, that the suit was fatally defective for failure to annex a certified extract of title relating to L.R. No. 209/15290 and further noting the unresolved issues relating to surrender, re-survey and re-parcelling of the land. 56.The second matter was Nairobi ELC E249 of 2021 Kipchoge Keino& 2 Others vs Marion Gitau &8 Others which directly concerned the competing claims over L.R. No. 209/15290 and L.R. No. 209/14309. In those proceedings, the Plaintiffs, being the Trustees of the National Olympic Committee-Kenya, asserted that L.R. No. 209/15290 had been lawfully allocated to them and that the title held by the Defendants under L.R. No. 209/14309 was irregular. 57.Conversely, the Defendants contended that the suit property originally belonged to them as L.R. No. 209/14309 and that the Plaintiffs had fraudulently caused the land to be re-surveyed and processed under different references, including L.R. Nos. 209/14150 and 209/14151, ultimately resulting in L.R. No. 209/15290. The suit was eventually struck out on account of pending proceedings. 58.The third matter was Nairobi ELC E023 of 2020 Golf Range Limited v Marion Gitau & 7 Others in which Golf Range Limited once again advanced a claim for adverse possession over the same suit property. In dismissing the suit on grounds of res judicata, the court observed that the Plaintiff was merely attempting to relitigate the same adverse possession claim previously advanced in ELC No. 125 of 2017 by adding new parties and giving the dispute what the court termed a “cosmetic facelift.” 59.The court further noted that notwithstanding the competing claims of ownership between the Defendants, the dispute did not alter the legal requirements governing a claim for adverse possession. 60.The court further notes that throughout the various proceedings, the Applicants consistently maintained that L.R. No. 209/14309 was lawfully allocated to them, while the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya asserted that the Applicants’ title had been fraudulently generated over land already allocated to the Trustees under L.R. No. 209/15290. 61.The controversy between the parties has therefore always revolved around the legitimacy and relationship of the competing titles and whether they relate to the same physical parcel of land. 62.The material before the court further reveals that various investigative and administrative bodies, including the National Land Commission, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the Commissioner of Lands and the Director of Surveys, were repeatedly called upon to interrogate the competing claims. Notably, the National Land Commission rendered a determination revoking the title held by the Registered Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya over L.R. No. 209/15290 and directing issuance of a new grant in favour of the present Applicants and Interested Parties. 63.However, in Republic v National Land Commission & 2 Others; Gitau & 6 Others (Interested Parties); Kipchoge Keino Trustees National Olympic Committee-Kenya & 2 Others (Ex Parte), the court quashed that determination on grounds of illegality and procedural impropriety, including findings that the National Land Commission had acted outside its statutory timelines and while parallel proceedings concerning the same property remained pending before the court. 64.What emerges from the foregoing is that there undeniably exists a dispute touching on the relationship, legitimacy and propriety of the competing titles. However, equally important is the fact that none of the proceedings cited before this court conclusively resolved that dispute in favour of either party. 65.The previous suits were either dismissed or struck out on procedural or jurisdictional grounds, while the Judicial Review court merely quashed the National Land Commission’s decision on grounds relating to legality of process and jurisdiction. At no point did any court conclusively pronounce itself on ownership of the suit property or determine that either title was invalid. 66.In the circumstances, while the Respondent asserts that the Applicants’ title remains “questionable,” such a bare assertion, without more, cannot by itself justify the indefinite continuation of a caveat against the Applicants’ property. 67.The Respondent has not pointed to any pending suit, active proceedings, or subsisting determination directly impugning the Applicants’ title or specifically directing preservation of the caveat pending adjudication of ownership rights. Indeed, the material before this court reveals that both L.R. No. 209/15290 and L.R. No. 209/14309 continue to exist in the land registry as separate registered titles. 68.Whether those titles overlap, relate to the same physical parcel, or were lawfully created remains a substantive question which has not been conclusively determined in any proceedings placed before this court. That question cannot properly be resolved indirectly through continued retention of a caveat by the Registrar in the absence of any active proceedings or adjudication determining the competing rights of the parties. 69.The effect of maintaining the caveat in the present circumstances would effectively amount to the court implicitly determining, without a substantive hearing, that the Applicants’ title is defective or subordinate to another competing claim. Such a finding cannot properly be arrived at through the present proceedings, particularly where no court has conclusively invalidated the Applicants’ title and no substantive proceedings remain pending for determination of the competing claims. 70.While the court appreciates the protective purpose of restrictions and cautions under Sections 71 to 76 of the Land Registration Act, such measures are not intended to subsist indefinitely merely on the basis of unresolved suspicions or historical disputes. A caveat is fundamentally a temporary preservatory mechanism pending pursuit or determination of identifiable rights through appropriate proceedings. 71.Once no substantive proceedings subsist and no conclusive finding has been made against the registered proprietor, continued retention of the caveat without demonstrable legal basis becomes difficult to sustain. 72.In the circumstances, the court is satisfied that although there has historically existed a dispute relating to the competing titles, the same has not been conclusively resolved in favour of any party and no sufficient basis has been demonstrated to justify the continued retention of the caveat over L.R. No. 209/14309. 73.The Respondent cannot indefinitely maintain the caveat solely on the generalized assertion that the Applicants’ title is “questionable” absent a subsisting dispute before a competent court or a determination invalidating the title. 74.Accordingly, the court finds merit in the Applicants’ Motion and directs as follows:a.The Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi is hereby directed to remove the caveat registered against Land Title No L.R 209/14309 IR. No 207763 on 17th April 2020 within 30 days.b.The costs of this application shall be borne by the Respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.O. A. ANGOTEJUDGEIn the presence of;Mr. Iriga for Karutha for ApplicantsMr. Allan Kamau for RespondentCourt Assistant: Tracy