Chege v Gachagua (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 187 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 187 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MURANG'A LAW COURTS ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E003 OF 2026 GK WAITHIRA, SRM JUNE 24, 2026 BETWEEN JAMES MICHAEL CHEGE ........................................................................ PLAINTIFF AND BEATRICE WAITHIRA GACHAGUA ................................................ DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. The plaintifi has sought the removal of a caution lodged by the defendant against land parcel No. Loc. 2/Kinyona/216 (herein “suit land”) through his plaint dated 15th January 2026. The defendant did not enter appearance or respond to the claim despite service. 2. The matter was therefore scheduled for hearing, with the plaintifi testifying as the sole witness. He averred that the defendant had placed the caution on the suit land on 14th June 2013, without any legitimate right. He pointed out that the defendant had not filed any suit to perfect her purported beneficial interest for a period of over 12 years. Further, despite being issued with a demand letter dated 31st October 2025, she had failed to remove the caution, hence the suit. Issues, Analysis And Determination 3. The central issue for determination in this matter is whether the caution lodged by the defendant against the suit land ought to be removed. 4. The Land Registration Act (herein “the Act”), at Section 71 allows a person claiming a right or an interest over a parcel of land to lodge a caution to safeguard their interest. Where there is no justifiable reason to maintain the caution, Section 73 (1) of the Act empowers the court to remove it. In the case of Kinyuru v Kimunya (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3050 (KLR) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/187/eng@2026-06-24 1
page 1 of 2
(21 May 2026) (Judgment) the court emphasized that a caution must have a legitimate basis for it to be place on the land. The court held; “ ... for the registration of a caution to be legally valid, it ought to have met the basic threshold under Section 71 of the Land Registration Act as herein above. The Respondent ought to have shown that she possessed a legitimate, recognizable caveatable interest because cautions cannot be used as a malicious tool to freeze a title or force a settlement.” 5. The plaintifi has proved that he is the registered owner of the suit land by production of a recent copy of a certificate of oficial search. That document also demonstrates that the defendant lodged a caution over the suit land in June 2013. There is no evidence to show that she has ever moved the court in any way to assert and perfect the beneficial interest she claims in the land more than a decade later. Being the registered proprietor of the suit land, the plaintifi is entitled to his enjoy his land, free from all other interests and claims. Having failed to demonstrate that she has a legitimate interest in the land, there is no reason to maintain the caution lodged by the defendant. 6. This court therefore finds merit in the plaintifi’s suit and allows it as follows; a. The defendant is hereby ordered to remove the caution lodged on land parcel No. Loc. 2/ Kinyona/216 within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which the District Land Registrar, Murang’a is ordered to remove the caution upon expiry of 30 days as above; b. The plaintifi shall have the costs of this suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2026. HON. GRACE WAITHĨRA SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE Judgment Read On The Virtual Platform In The Presence Of; C/a Jeremiah Mr. Kirubi H/b For Mr. Mwangi Ben For The Plaintifi No Appearance For The Defendant Mcelc E003 Of 2026 James Michael Vs Beatrice Gachagua - Judgment Page 2 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/187/eng@2026-06-24 2
page 2 of 2