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 excerpt (judgment of 22.5.2019 referenced)· [2019] KEELC 1719 (KLR)

Loyford Muriuki Riara & 3 others v Kithinji Njoka, Murithi Njoka & 3 others [2019] KEELC 1719 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2019
PNP. M. Njoroge
339 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

#

The Environment and Land Court in Chuka removed a caution blocking a land judgment, showing courts will clear such obstacles when nobody objects.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an unopposed application before the Environment and Land Court at Chuka, brought under section 73(1) & 6 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012, sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants sought removal of a caution placed against Land Parcel No. Magumoni/Thuita/494 by one Erastus Marangu, now deceased, who was the husband of the 4th plaintiff. The caution had made it impossible to implement the court's judgment delivered on 22nd May 2019 in the underlying suit. When the matter came up on 25th September 2019, counsel for the defendants urged the court to grant prayer 2 to facilitate implementation of the judgment, while counsel for the 4th plaintiff confirmed the application was not opposed. The court, per P. M. Njoroge J, found the application had merit and granted prayer 2, issuing an order removing the caution to enable implementation of the 22.5.2019 judgment. The court declined to award costs, ordering that none be awarded. The ruling was delivered in open court at Chuka on 25th September 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Removal of a caution to enable implementation of a judgment

Holding

The unopposed application to remove the caution over the suit land was merited so the judgment of 22.5.2019 could be implemented

Reasoning

The judgment of 22nd May 2019 could not be implemented because of a caution lodged by Erastus Marangu, now deceased, husband to the 4th plaintiff. The application was unopposed; the defendants' advocate asked for grant of prayer 2 and the 4th plaintiff's advocate indicated no opposition. Finding merit, the court granted prayer 2 and made no order on costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may order removal of a caution obstructing implementation of its own judgment where no prejudice is shown

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer 2 granted – an order removing the caution placed against Land Parcel No. Magumoni/Thuita/494 to enable implementation of the court's judgment delivered on 22.5.2019
  2. 2.No costs awarded

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012section 73(1) & 6
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenyasections 3, 3A and 63(e)
  • The Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 73(1) & 6 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012; sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Loyford Muriuki Riara & 3 others v Kithinji Njoka, Murithi Njoka & 3 others [2019] KEELC 1719 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment excerpt (judgment of 22.5.2019 referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1719/eng@2019-09-25

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