[2013] KEHC 4338 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4338 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the land in question and that the respondent, his son, had already received a portion of land from the applicant. The respondent's lodging of a caution was not supported by any legitimate or legal interest, especially since he had already benefited and had not contested the applicant's claims. The applicant's right to transfer land to third parties was being impeded without lawful justification. There was no evidence that the applicant's actions prejudiced the interests of other family members or that the land was matrimonial property requiring special protection. Therefore, the caution was deemed misplaced and ordered to be...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 4338 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kiptarus Bindo; Respondent: Benjamin Kiptoo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 March 2013
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 61 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Originating Summons
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Removal of Caution, Land Ownership, Beneficiary Interest, Transfer of Land
Source Language
English
Land and Property Removal of Caution Land Ownership Beneficiary Interest Transfer of Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiptarus Bindo

Applicant

Benjamin Kiptoo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the caution lodged by the respondent against the applicant's land title should be removed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, as registered owner, is entitled to deal with the land including transferring it to third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the land in question and that the respondent, his son, had already received a portion of land from the applicant. The respondent's lodging of a caution was not supported by any legitimate or legal interest, especially since he had already benefited and had not contested the applicant's claims. The applicant's right to transfer land to third parties was being impeded without lawful justification. There was no evidence that the applicant's actions prejudiced the interests of other family members or that the land was matrimonial property requiring special protection. Therefore, the caution was deemed misplaced and ordered to be...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The caution lodged against title no. Kaisagat/Makhonge Block 2/Karaus/193 shall be removed forthwith.
  • The applicant shall have costs of this application.