Joel Gikunju Gatungu v Kirinyaga County Council & 3 others [2019] KEELC 2261 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to remove cautions on ancestral land because the applicant had lost his claim and had no recognized interest in the property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant had standing to seek removal of cautions on MUTIRA/KAGUYU/50
The application was dismissed; the Applicant had no legitimate claim over the suit property as found by the Land Disputes Tribunal, and therefore could not seek to enforce a decree not in his favour or have the caution removed.
The Tribunal in LDT No. 67 of 1997, whose award was adopted by the Court on 26th June 2007, held that the suit property belongs to the Ambui a Mbari ya Gichimba Clan and found that the Applicant, one of the claimants, had no legitimate claim. The Applicant himself placed one of the cautions sought to be removed. Having dismissed claims and subsequent applications to rectify the award, the Applicant could not invoke the Court's process to enforce a decree that was not in his favour.
Legal principles established
#- Only parties with a legitimate interest in suit property can complain against a caution on it or seek to implement the court's decision.
- A party cannot enforce a decree of a judgment that was not made in his favour.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 22nd January 2013 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A and Order L of the Civil Procedure Act (CPA)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joel Gikunju Gatungu v Kirinyaga County Council & 3 others [2019] KEELC 2261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2261/eng@2019-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.