Beth Wanjiru Karanja v Jeam Murithi Njiru [2018] KEELC 590 (KLR)

The Land Control Act establishes the LCB to regulate dealings in agricultural land by granting, deferring or declining consent to controlled transactions. It confers no adjudicatory mandate. Consent gives legal validity to a transaction but does not compel completion; a vendor may still resile. Only specific performance confers an interest in land, and the LCB consent is merely facilitative evidence.

The Appellant did not plead limitation in her defence or counterclaim; she pleaded occupation under a sale agreement and a trust. Under Odd Jobs v Mubia, an unpleaded issue may only be decided if it was left to the court at trial, which was not demonstrated here. A new ground introduced only in submissions (section 28(b) overriding interest) was likewise not considered for want of pleading and leave.

The Appellant abandoned the pleaded ground and argued for the first time on submissions that the caution was unprocedurally removed and that notice was insufficient. Section 73(2)-(3) permits removal if no objection is raised within the stated time. There was no evidence of procedural irregularity, and the Appellant failed to act diligently despite receiving notice 5 days before the deadline.

No authority supported the proposition that magistrates' courts lack jurisdiction to order cancellation of title; a gazetted magistrate may fully hear and determine environment and land matters, save for statutory exceptions such as section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. However, the counterclaim sought only a declaration of trust and registration, not cancellation, and the evidence did not justify cancelling the Respondent's title.