[2020] KEELC 764 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, who placed the cautions on the suit properties, fully participated in the hearing and lost the case. No appeal or other dispute is pending regarding the land. The court held that, under Section 73 of the Land Registration Act, it has the power to order removal of a caution. Since...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 764 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Moses Warui Gatimu; Defendant: Douglas Mwai Machuru; Defendant: Daniel Karimi Wanjohi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 786 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Removal of Caution
- Outcome
- Application allowed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Removal of Caution, Land Registration, Post Judgment Applications
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Moses Warui Gatimu
Plaintiff
Douglas Mwai Machuru
Defendant
Daniel Karimi Wanjohi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Removal of Caution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cautions/restrictions placed on land parcels MWERUA/BARICHO/1634 and 1635 should be removed following the judgment.
- 2 Whether there is any legal impediment, such as a pending appeal or dispute, to the removal of the cautions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, who placed the cautions on the suit properties, fully participated in the hearing and lost the case. No appeal or other dispute is pending regarding the land. The court held that, under Section 73 of the Land Registration Act, it has the power to order removal of a caution. Since the application was unopposed and the applicant established that the cautions were no longer justified, the court was satisfied that the removal was warranted to allow the parties to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. The Notice of Motion was therefore allowed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application allowed with costs.
Orders
- The Land Registrar – Kirinyaga is ordered to remove all cautions and/or restrictions placed on land parcel Nos. MWERUA/BARICHO/1635 and 1634.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KERUGOYA
ELC CASE NO. 786 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF L.R. NO. MWERUA/BARICHO/1634 AND 1635
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTION CAP 22 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA
MOSES WARUI GATIMU..............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DOUGLAS MWAI MACHURU.............................................1ST DEFENDANT
DANIEL KARIMI WANJOHI ..............................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
Introduction
The applicant in the Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2020 sought an order that this Honourable Court be pleased to order the Land Registrar – Kirinyaga to remove all the cautions and/or restrictions placed on land parcel Nos. MWERUA/BARICHO/1635 and 1634. The application is premised on the following two grounds:-
(1) That the judgment herein was entered on 20th day of September 2019.
(2) That there is no appeal pending in respect to the subject matter.
In support of the said application, the applicant filed an affidavit sworn the same date in which he annexed a copy of the said judgment. He further stated that no appeal has been preferred by the respondent against the aforesaid judgment and that there is no other dispute pending before any Court or tribunal in respect to the suit land. The applicant attached a copy of certificate of official search showing that a caution has indeed been placed on land title numbers MWERUA/BARICHO/1635 and 1634. He deponed that it is only fair if the cautions are removed to complete the process of sub-division to enable them enjoy the fruits of the judgment. A copy of the judgment delivered on 20th September 2019 is also annexed to the supporting affidavit.
When the application came up for inter-partes hearing on 29th September 2020, the respondent and her counsel were absent. Upon confirming that the hearing date was taken by consent of the parties authorized representatives at the Court’s registry, the Court allowed the application to proceed ex-parte.
I have considered the affidavit evidence in support of the application and the grounds shown on the face of the said application. I have also considered the applicable law. The Land Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stipulates an elaborate mechanism of registration and removal of a caution. Under Section 71(1) (a) of the Land Registration Act, a person who claims to have a right or interest in any land, lease or charge may lodge a caution against the property in issue for the purpose of forbidding registration of dispositions in relation thereto. The certificate of official search which is annexed to the supporting affidavit by the applicant shows that the subject caution was placed in favour of Moses Warui Gatimu as a purchaser on 01/12/2015. There is no doubt from the materials on record that the cautioner placed the same during the pendency of this suit. Section 73 of the Act provides as follows:-
“1. A caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the Court or, subject to Sub-section (2), by order of the Registrar.
2. the Registrar, on the application of any person interested, may serve notice on the cautioner warning the cautioner that the caution will be removed at the expiry of the time stated in the notice.
3. if a cautioner has not raised any objection at the expiry of the time stated, the Registrar may remove the caution.
4. If the cautioner objects to the removal of the caution, the cautioner shall notify the Registrar, in writing, of the objection within the time specified in the notice, and the Registrar shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make such order as the Registrar considers fit, and may in the order provide for the payment of costs”.
From the materials placed before me, the plaintiff in this case is the same person who placed the caution. He fully participated in the hearing of this suit and lost it fairly and squarely. He has not appealed against the judgment.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the Court is satisfied that the Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2020 which is not opposed is merited and the same is allowed with costs. It is so ordered.
READ, DELIVERED and SIGNED in open Court at Kerugoya this 9th day of October, 2020.
……………………………
E.C. CHERONO
ELC JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Mr. Ngigi for Applicant
2. Plaintiff/Advocate – absent
3. Mbogo – Court clerk