Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (Notice of motion dated March 8, 2022)· [2022] KEELC 3992 (KLR)

Murigu v The Land Registrar (Naivasha Office) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 3992 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 July 2022
LOL.A Omollo
910 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that cautions on land titles cannot outlive the dismissed lawsuits that created them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Hannah Mukuhi Murigu, filed a notice of motion dated March 8, 2022 seeking removal of a caution lodged by Patrick Ngari Mbachu (now deceased) over land parcel Kijabe/Kijabe block 1/3045, of which she is the registered owner. The caution was lodged in 1990 pursuant to an order in Nakuru CMCC No 546 of 1990, in which Patrick Ngari Mbachu claimed ownership. That suit was transferred to the High Court as Nakuru HCCC No 82 of 2000 and dismissed on November 12, 2003 for want of prosecution; an application to revive it, dated August 25, 2005, was also dismissed on December 15, 2006. The respondent, Land Registrar Naivasha, was served but filed no response. The court grounded its jurisdiction in section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act, which permits a court to order removal of a caution, and applied the reasoning in Christian Wafula Omusulo and Jane Wanjiku Mwangi. Observing that the underlying suit had been dismissed 19 years earlier and revival efforts had failed, the court found no justification for the caution to subsist. Invoking the overriding objective of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, and noting that litigation must come to an end after 32 years, the court allowed the application, directing the Land Registrar Naivasha to remove the caution, with the applicant bearing her own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a caution should be removed where the underlying suit was dismissed for want of prosecution

Holding

The caution was removed; the suit supporting it was dismissed in 2003 and revival efforts failed in 2006, so the caution served no purpose.

Reasoning

The court examined the official search showing the caution lodged pursuant to an order in Nakuru CMCC No 546 of 1990, later HCCC No 82 of 2000, dismissed on November 12, 2003 for want of prosecution, with a revival application dismissed on December 15, 2006. Relying on section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act and persuasive authorities, the court held that with no pending suit or decree in the cautioner's favour, no justification existed for the caution to remain, and the overriding objective required an end to 32-year-old litigation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to remove a caution derives from section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act, under which a caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the court or the Registrar.
  • Where the suit pursuant to which a caution was lodged has been dismissed and efforts to revive it have failed, there is no justification for the caution to subsist on the land.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order directing the Land Registrar Naivasha to remove the caution lodged on Land Parcel No Kijabe/Kijabe block 1/3045 by Patrick Ngari Mbachu
  2. 2.The applicant to meet own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Actsection 73(1)
  • Environment and Land Court Actoverriding objectives
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1B

Cases cited (3)

  • Christian Wafula Omusulo & 2 others Vs Pauline Jerotich and another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Jane Wanjiku Mwangi and Another vs Nathan Ndegwa Njeru
    [2020] eKLR
  • Mucamo Vs Edward Kagane Kaguce
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 73(1) of the Land Registration Act; Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murigu v The Land Registrar (Naivasha Office) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 3992 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (Notice of motion dated March 8, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3992/eng@2022-07-25

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