[2005] KEHC 3150 (KLR)
The court found that its previous order granting the removal of the caveat was made in error, as the originating summons did not specifically seek such an order and the substantive application could only be heard after proper directions and service of notice to the defendant. The court therefore set aside its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 3150 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ryna Florah Onyango Kadasia; Defendant: Lilina Gichiru; Defendant: The Principal Registrar of Titles
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 535 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Order and Stay Sale Pending Clarification
- Outcome
- Order setting aside previous order for removal of caveat; interim stay of sale pending clarification; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Caveats on Land, Removal of Caveat, Injunctive Relief, Procedure for Originating Summons
- 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
Ryna Florah Onyango Kadasia
Plaintiff
Lilina Gichiru
Defendant
The Principal Registrar of Titles
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Order and Stay Sale Pending Clarification
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the previous order for removal of the caveat was properly granted.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of sale of the property pending clarification of ownership.
- 3 Whether the originating summons sought an order for removal of the caveat.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its previous order granting the removal of the caveat was made in error, as the originating summons did not specifically seek such an order and the substantive application could only be heard after proper directions and service of notice to the defendant. The court therefore set aside its earlier order. Regarding the injunction, the court noted that if the property had already been transferred to a third party, there would be nothing to stay, but allowed the applicant to file a further affidavit to clarify the current ownership status. In the interim, the court stayed any sale of the property until these matters are clarified, reserving the issue of costs.
Court Disposition
Order setting aside previous order for removal of caveat; interim stay of sale pending clarification; costs reserved.
Orders
- The order made on 12/5/2004 for removal of the caveat is set aside.
- The applicant is allowed to file a further affidavit to clarify the ownership status of the property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Case 535 of 2004IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR LIFTING AND /OR VACATION OF CAVEAT REGISTERED AGAINST L.R NO. 209/2960-NAIROBI
BETWEEN RYNA FLORAH ONYANGO KADASIA………………….PLAINTIFF ANDLILINA GICHIRU………………………………..……1ST DEFENDANT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF TITLES……….2ND DEFENDANTRULING
It seems this matter came before me on the 12/5/2004 pursuant to an order by Mr. Justice Kariuki. What in my view was before me is the Notice of Motion of 29/4/2004 seeking declarations. Mr. Odera now says it was the substantive Originating Summons of 29/4/2004. The substantive application could only be heard after directions had been given and Notice of hearing served on the Defendant.
The order was as result of my written order which stated “l have power to make the order sought for and set aside my previous order and grant the application as prayed”.
In the morning l had ordered that the Applicant to serve the Respondent with a notice under Section 57 of the Registration of Titles Act.
I notice in fact that even if l was wrong, which l think l was in dealing with the question of the removal of the caveat the Origination Summons of the 29/4/2004 sought orders which only questioned and did not seek an order for the removal of the caveat.
I therefore set aside the order made by me on the 12/5/2004.
So far as the question of the injunction is concerned it appears that the property in question has been transferred to a third party if so there would be nothing to stay. I will however allow the applicant to file a Further Affidavit to clarify whether the property still remains in the name of the Respondent to the Application. In any event l stay any sale of the property until these matters are clarified. It may well be that the Applicant has to perfect her rights to the suit premises before making this present application and that is a matter for her. I will reserve the costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI on 10th March 2005.
P.J RANSLEY JUDGE