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 (Notice of Motion dated 12th October 2020)· [2021] KEELC 4429 (KLR)

Patrick Wanyonyi Siboko v Land Registrar – Bungoma [2021] KEELC 4429 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 February 2021
BOBoaz N. Olao
600 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court removed an unjustified caution on private land, confirming landowners can clear wrongful cautions through the Land Registration Act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Patrick Wanyonyi Siboko, registered proprietor of land parcel NO KIMILILI/KIMILILI/2303 since 8th February 1994, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 12th October 2020 under Section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act, Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking removal of a caution lodged on the suit land. He discovered the caution in June 2020 when attempting to transfer the land to his children. He was told it was placed pursuant to orders in Kakamega High Court Civil Case No 24 of 1994, but perusal of that file showed the parties were strangers to him and the subject land was parcel NO KAKAMEGA/SHIKULU/430. The Land Registrar Bungoma, though personally served, filed no response and did not attend court; the application was unopposed. The judge, taking into account that the Applicant was an aged pro se litigant, called for the Kakamega file and confirmed that the subject of that suit was a different parcel, that no orders for a caution had been made there, and that the suit had been dismissed by H.P.G. Waweru J on 13th June 2002 for want of prosecution. Holding that the suit land was wrongly cautioned, the court ordered the caution removed forthwith, summoned the Land Registrar to appear on 11th February 2021, and made no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the caution on KIMILILI/KIMILILI/2303 was justified

Holding

The caution was wrongly placed; there were no orders in Kakamega High Court Civil Case No 24 of 1994 authorising a caution on the suit land, the subject of that suit being a different parcel, and that suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Reasoning

The court called for and perused the Kakamega High Court file. It established that the subject matter of that suit was parcel NO KAKAMEGA/SHIKULU/430, not the suit land, that the parties were strangers to the Applicant, and that no orders for a caution were ever made in that file. The suit had been dismissed by H.P.G. Waweru J on 13th June 2002 for want of prosecution, so there was no lawful basis for the caution.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the Court or, subject to subsection (2), by order of the Registrar under Section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The caution lodged on the land parcel NO KIMILILI/KIMILILI/2303 be removed forthwith
  2. 2.The LAND REGISTRAR BUNGOMA MS HELLEN A OJWANG be summoned to appear before this Court on 11th February 2021 at 9 a.m.
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 73(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act; Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patrick Wanyonyi Siboko v Land Registrar – Bungoma [2021] KEELC 4429 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 12th October 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4429/eng@2021-02-11

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