Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated (Miscellaneous Application dated 12.08.2021)· [2022] KEELC 2136 (KLR)

Anna Chesaina Kenduiywa v Nandi County Land Registrar [2022] KEELC 2136 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 January 2022
1,874 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a bid to remove restrictions on land because the owner skipped the required application to the Land Registrar and never involved the person who lodged the caution.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, the registered proprietor of NANDI/KAMAIYWO 288, moved the court under section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act seeking removal of restriction entries numbers 5 and 6 placed on the register, the first dated 14.4.2001 referring to a Chief's letter and Kapsabet SPMCC No. 7 of 1982, and the second dated 21.2.06 being a decree in that suit entitling the Defendant and her children to an equal share. The Respondent (Land Registrar, through Judith Cherutich) opposed, arguing that the Applicant never first applied to the Land Registrar under sections 73 and 78(1), that the cautioner Monica Chemtai was not enjoined, and that a Miscellaneous Application was the wrong procedural vehicle. The court agreed. It found that the statutory mechanism in sections 73 and 78(1) requires an application to the Land Registrar first, following Mwangi Rukwaro; that removal without hearing the cautioner Monica Chemtai would condemn her unheard, relying on John Kamau Kinyanjui and Nyaga Nderi; and, following Joseph Kibowen Chemior, that an action for removal of a caution must be commenced by Plaint, not Miscellaneous Application or Originating Summons. The application dated 12.08.2021 was disallowed. The Applicant was directed to exhaust the statutory mechanism before the Land Registrar, and costs were awarded to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Statutory procedure for removal of restrictions

Holding

The Applicant was required to first apply to the Land Registrar under sections 73 and 78(1) of the Land Registration Act before invoking section 78(2) in court

Reasoning

Section 73(1) allows a caution to be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by the Registrar, the court, or subject to subsection (2) by the Registrar. Subsection (2) permits the Registrar, on application by an interested person, to serve notice on the cautioner. The court, relying on Mwangi Rukwaro, found that this process must be exhausted so the Registrar can give the cautioner an opportunity to show cause, and the Applicant had not done so.

p. 2
02

Non-joinder of the cautioner

Holding

The court cannot remove a restriction without hearing the cautioner, Monica Chemtai, who was not joined to the application

Reasoning

The Respondent deponed that the parties herein were not party to Kapsabet RMCC No. 7 of 1982 and that Monica Chemtai, who lodged the restrictions, should have been enjoined to hear her side. Relying on John Kamau Kinyanjui and Nyaga Nderi, the court held that removing the restriction without the cautioner's participation would condemn her unheard, particularly where the documents underpinning the restriction were not availed.

p. 2
03

Correct procedural vehicle

Holding

Removal of a caution/restriction must be sought by way of Plaint, not Miscellaneous Application or Originating Summons

Reasoning

Following Joseph Kibowen Chemior, the court observed that the right to register a caution predates the Land Registration Act and is governed by prior law, which did not provide for removal by Miscellaneous Application or Originating Summons. The fallback under the Civil Procedure Act is to commence suit by Plaint, in which the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities why the caution has no rightful basis.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for removal of a caution/restriction must first be made to the Land Registrar under sections 73 and 78(1) of the Land Registration Act, and the cautioner must be joined and heard before removal is ordered
  • Where the cautioner is not joined in proceedings for removal of a caution/restriction, the application will be disallowed as it would condemn the cautioner unheard
  • An action for removal of a caution must be commenced by way of Plaint, not by Miscellaneous Application or Originating Summons

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 12.08.2021 is disallowed
  2. 2.The Applicant should exhaust the mechanism for removal of a caution/restriction under sections 73 and 78(1) of the Land Registration Act by making the necessary application before the Land Registrar
  3. 3.Costs awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Actsection 78(2)
  • Land Registration Actsection 73(1) and (2)
  • Land Registration Actsection 78(1)
  • Land Registration Actsection 73(3)(4)
  • Civil Procedure Actnot specified

Cases cited (6)

  • David Macharia Kinyuru vs District Land Registrar Naivasha and Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Mwangi Rukwaro and Another vs Land Registrar Nyeri/Nandi
    (2019) eKLR
  • Joseph Kibowen Chemior vs William C. Kisera
    2013 eKLR
  • Rajab Kosgei Magut vs Nuru Jepleting Choge
    2020 eKLR
  • John Kamau Kinyanjui v Thika District Land Registrar
    [2017] eKLR
  • Nyaga Nderi v James Nyaga Kinyua
    [2021] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 78(2) of the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Anna Chesaina Kenduiywa v Nandi County Land Registrar [2022] KEELC 2136 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated (Miscellaneous Application dated 12.08.2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2136/eng@2022-01-19

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