Peter Karanja v Mariam Magdaline Kinyuru [2018] KEELC 790 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A registered landowner in Kenya proved his title, removed a caution blocking his land, but got no damages because he had no evidence of loss.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Indefeasibility of the Plaintiff's title
The Plaintiff, holding a Title Deed issued on 16th April 2014 with no evidence of cancellation, revocation, fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corrupt scheme, is the absolute and indefeasible owner of the suit property
The court applied Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, which makes a certificate of title prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, subject only to challenge on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is party, or acquisition illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. No evidence was adduced, the claim being undefended, to bring the title within those exceptions.
Validity of the sale and root of title
The sale to the Plaintiff was valid as Land Control Board consent was obtained and the vendor, Njaga Karanja, was the registered owner who signed the transfer
The court found that consent for the transfer was given by the Kikuyu Land Control Board in accordance with Section 6 of the Land Control Act, rendering the sale valid. The Land Certificate in the vendor's name was produced and there was no evidence that it had been impeached or revoked, so the root of the Plaintiff's title could be traced.
Removal of the caution and restrictions
The caution lodged by the Defendant and the restrictions placed on the title should be removed as there was no sufficient cause shown for their continuation
Under Section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act a caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the Court. The Defendant did not appear to justify the caution lodged on 16th November 2015. The restrictions were placed in 2016, two years after the Plaintiff's registration, and there was no evidence of any charge of fraud against the Plaintiff, so no sufficient cause existed to sustain them.
Entitlement to general damages for trespass/mesne profits
The claim for general damages failed for lack of evidence that the Plaintiff suffered loss
Although the Plaintiff claimed Kshs.1,440,000 as general damages in submissions, no evidence was tendered to prove that he had suffered general damages from the alleged encroachment. The court therefore refused this head of relief while granting the injunction, vacation order and removal of the caution and restrictions.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor holds title as absolute and indefeasible owner under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, challengeable only on the grounds in Section 26(1)(a) and (b)
- A caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the Court under Section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant as prayed in prayers No.(i) and (ii) - injunction restraining the Defendant from encroaching, entering, utilizing, constructing on, charging, selling or interfering with the suit property, and an order that the Defendant vacate the land forthwith and remove the caution
- 2.The Land Registrar, Kiambu directed to remove the caution and restrictions placed on the suit property
- 3.The Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction); claim under the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Karanja v Mariam Magdaline Kinyuru [2018] KEELC 790 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Case No.638 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/790/eng@2018-11-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.