Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 14.12.2016)· [2017] KEELC 879 (KLR)

Pauline Wangui Waweru & another v Peter Njoro Njenga & another [2017] KEELC 879 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 November 2017
PNP. M. Njoroge
349 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court removed a caution blocking a land transfer, allowing the property to pass to a buyer who had been allotted it under a confirmed grant.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an unopposed application dated 14 December 2016 seeking removal of a caution lodged by the 1st Respondent, Peter Njoro Njenga, over Title No. MAGUMONI/MUKUUNI/529. The applicant's grounds were that the caution had been lodged owing to a pending sale or transfer between the 1st Respondent and the registered owner, Waweru Kamau (now deceased); that in the intervening period the 1st Respondent had sold the property to David Mugambi Nyamu, who finalised the transaction and introduced the applicant to the administrators of the deceased's estate; that Nyamu participated in the distribution of the estate and was allotted the property as a purchaser for value under the confirmed grant; that the property could not be transferred in accordance with the confirmed grant unless the caution was removed; that no other dispute or claim existed between the applicant and the 1st Respondent; and that the Land Registrar required a court order to remove the caution. At the hearing on 21 November 2017 the respondents were absent, but the applicants' advocate produced two affidavits of service. The court was satisfied that proper service had been effected and granted prayer 1, ordering that the caution be removed forthwith. Although the applicant sought costs against the respondents, the court declined and ordered that no costs be awarded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Service of the hearing date on the respondents

Holding

Service was properly effected and the hearing proceeded in the respondents' absence

Reasoning

The applicants' advocate produced two affidavits of service showing the respondents had been served with the hearing date. The court was satisfied that proper service had been effected, allowing the unopposed application to proceed ex parte.

p. 2
02

Removal of the caution lodged over Title No. MAGUMONI/MUKUUNI/529

Holding

The caution lodged by the 1st Respondent was removed

Reasoning

The grounds showed the caution arose from a pending sale/transfer between the 1st Respondent and the deceased owner, that the intervening purchaser had participated in the distribution of the estate and been allotted the property, and that transfer under the confirmed grant could not proceed unless the caution was removed. The court granted prayer 1.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the applicant satisfies the court that service was properly effected, the court may proceed to hear the application in the absence of the respondents

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer 1 granted - the caution placed against Title No. MAGUMONI/MUKUUNI/529 lodged by the 1st respondent be removed forthwith
  2. 2.No costs awarded
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated in the judgment; exercised under the statutory power to order removal of cautions on registered land (Land Registration Act) as invoked in the application

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pauline Wangui Waweru & another v Peter Njoro Njenga & another [2017] KEELC 879 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 14.12.2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/879/eng@2017-11-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.