Chege v Registrar & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E043 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7911 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ordered the removal of a 24-year-old caution blocking a Nairobi property, confirming landowners can go straight to court to clear stale cautions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of failure to issue statutory notice under Section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act
Failure to issue the notice does not render the application incompetent where the Attorney General participated fully and suffered no prejudice
The object of Section 13A is to notify government departments of intended claims to allow administrative resolution, not to defeat litigation. The Attorney General served, entered appearance, filed grounds of opposition and made written submissions, so had full and effective notice. No prejudice was demonstrated, the claim being procedural/administrative rather than monetary. The 2010 Constitution obliges interpretation that promotes access to justice, so Section 13A compliance cannot be elevated to a jurisdictional requirement nullifying proceedings in these circumstances.
Conditions for removal of a caution under Sections 71–73 of the Land Registration Act
The caution lodged by the 1st Respondent was unsubstantiated, irregular and unlawful, and the Applicant satisfied the threshold under Section 73(1) for its removal
The Applicant produced a Certificate of Lease and an Official Search confirming the caution; the cautioner was untraceable and never served. The caution had stood for over 24 years without the cautioner perfecting any lessee's interest. The onus lay on the cautioner to justify the caution, and his silence and absence discharged him of no such burden. An unsupported caution is illegal and must be lifted. The court declared the caution baseless and liable to removal.
Costs of the application
Although the Applicant succeeded, each party was directed to bear their own costs as the matter was uncontested on the merits
Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the discretion may be departed from for good reason. The 1st Respondent filed no response and the 2nd Respondent filed no affidavit or submissions disputing the facts, so the matter was uncontested and no conduct justified an award of costs against the Respondents.
Legal principles established
#- A caution is temporary and protective in nature and is not intended to subsist indefinitely; a decades-old unjustified caution violates the proprietor's constitutional right to property
- Failure to issue a notice of intention to sue under Section 13A of the Government Proceedings Act does not render proceedings a nullity where the Attorney General has actively participated without prejudice
- The three modes of removing a caution under Section 73 of the Land Registration Act are independent of each other; recourse to the Registrar is not a precondition to approaching the court
Court orders
#- 1.The Nairobi District Land Registrar is directed to forthwith remove the caution registered on 20th November 2000 against Land Parcel No. Nairobi/Block 111/1982, lodged by Ankanory Mudenyo Obuya, claiming a lessee's interest
- 2.Upon removal of the said caution, the Registrar shall rectify the land register to reflect the Applicant as the sole and unencumbered proprietor of the property
- 3.Each party shall bear their own costs of this application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Sections 73(1) & (6) and 75 of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chege v Registrar & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E043 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7911 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7911/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.