George Mwangi Kanyoni v James Maina Mwangi & Peter Mwangi Kiragu [2014] KEHC 50 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU

ELC CASE NO. 10 OF 2014 (O.S)

GEORGE MWANGI KANYONI....................APPLICANT

VERSUS

JAMES MAINA MWANGI.................1ST RESPONDENT

PETER MWANGI KIRAGU...............2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The  applicant, George Mwangi Kanyoni,  brought the application dated  18th December, 2013  seeking the removal of a caution registered by James  Maina Mwangi and  Peter Mwangi Kiragu (the  respondents) against Title No. Nyandarua/Pesi/2014 (hereinafter called   "the suit property").

2. The  application is  brought under Section 24 and73of the  Land Registration Act,  2012; Order  37 Rule 8of the Civil Procedure Rules and  is  premised  on the  grounds that the applicant being the  registered proprietor of the suit  property, is  entitled to  all  the  rights  and  privileges appurtenant thereto; that the  caution registered against the  suit property is  an affront to the  applicant's  right of ownership and as such unlawful. The  applicant contends that the  respondents have  no  registrable interest over  the suit land and that being the  case, it  is  in  the interest of justice to grant the  orders sought.

3. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant wherein the grounds thereon are reiterated.  In addition to the grounds on the face of the application, the applicant has deposed that the   suit property is a sub­ division of Title No. Nyandarua/Pesi/84.

4. It is  the applicant's case that he   sub-divided and allocated the original title to his family members as follows:-

a) Title No. Nyandarua/Pesi/537 measuring 13. 36 hectares (approximately 33 acres) was transferred to Peris Wangari;

b) Title No. Nyandarua/Pesi/876 measuring 9. 907 hectares (approximately 24. 5 acres) was transferred to Joice Muthoni;

c) Title No. Nyandarua/Pesi/538 measuring 11. 13 hectares (approximately 27. 5 acres) was transferred to Mary Wanjiku Mwangi.

5. The   applicant reserved the   suit property, measuring 7. 96 hectares (approximately 19. 6 acres) for his own use or disposal during his lifetime.

6.  Contending that  the   respondents are   not   entitled  to claim any beneficial interest over  the  suit land during his life   time,  the applicant  urges  this  court  to   order  the removal of the  caution to  facilitate his  unhindered use of the  suit property.

7. In opposition to the application, the respondents filed the replying affidavit sworn on 27th June, 2014. In  that affidavit the   respondents  have inter  alia  deposed that sometimes in   the   year  2012  they  were   approached by their mothers (the  wives  of  the  applicant) who  informed them that the   applicant was  in  the  process of  disposing off all  or  part of the  suit property; that after enquiries into the  matter,  they  established  that  the applicant  had already received Kshs.450,000/ =  being 10°/o  deposit  or part payment for  15 acres from  the prospective buyer, Mwangi  King'ethu; that   after  they  learnt   that   the applicant intended to dispose off the  suit property, their mothers requested them to  explore means  of  protecting their  interests  in   the suit  property from   the  arbitrary actions of their father.

8. Concerning the  applicant's  contention  that  as  the absolute proprietor of the land, he  has sole  rights of use of  the land, the respondent argue that  since the suit property  is  family land,  they are recognized under  the new land regime.

9.  Explaining that  the applicant 1s an old   man, the respondent   argue  that   the   suit   property  should  be protected  in   order  to   sustain  the  applicant  during  his lifetime. The respondents are apprehensive that unless the applicant is restrained from disposing off the suit property, his intended action would leave him destitute and a burden to his wives.

10. The  respondents  further  contend  that  the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (chapter 5 thereof) recognizes the rights of  their  mothers  (read wives)   and  specifically calls for  elimination of any form of gender discrimination in  law,  customs   and   practices   related  to   land  and property in  land. In  this regard, the respondents referred to  Section 93 of the Land Registration Act,  20 12  to  argue that   their  mothers  having  contributed  1n   the development/ improvement   of   the   suit   property  have rights over the suit property.

11.   In  view  of  the foregoing, the respondents argue that the applicant required the consent of his wives before he any    other  dealings  which  might  adversely  affect    the interests of the  spouses in  the suit property.

12.  Concerning the  authorities filed  by the  applicant's advocate in  support of  the   application herein, the respondents contend that  the authorities ceased to   be good  law  after the  enactment of new  legislations on  land and in  particular, the  Land  Registration Act,  2012.

13 . Explaining that  the   impugned  action  of  lodging  a caution  against  dealings with the suit  property is   not malicious or  aimed at denying the  applicant peaceful enjoyment of  the   suit property, the   respondents  have maintained that their  actions  are  legitimate  and   in pursuit of their mothers' interest therein.

14. When the application came up for hearing on   10th July, 2014, directions were   taken to the   effect   that the application be disposed off by way of affidavit evidence. Consequently, the   parties adopted their respective affidavits as evidence.

15.  From the pleadings filed herein, the Issues for determination are:-

1.  Whether the respondents have registrable interest over the suit property?

2. Whether the lodging of the caution herein is an affront to the applicant's right over the suit property and as such unlawful?

3.  Whether the applicant has made up a case for issuance of the orders sought?

Whether the respondents have registrable interest over the suit property?

16.  According to the affidavit sworn by the respondents, they filed the   caution herein on behalf of their mothers (the wives of the applicant).  They contend that their mothers instructed them to explore means of protecting their interests in the suit property. Though the  foregoing allegation is  not   contested,  there being no  documentary evidence annexed  to  the   affidavits to  prove that the respondents  placed the impugned caution  on  the instructions of their mothers, I find  and hold  that the respondents   have  not    proved  that   they  placed  the impugned  caution  on instructions  of   the  applicant's spouses as alleged.

17.  Without any evidence that the  respondents lodged the caution  with  the  authority or instructions of the applicant's  spouses  (their mothers)   and  given   the fact that  they claim to be pursuing  their  alleged mothers' unregistered interest in  the  suit property, I find  and hold that their claim is  not  properly grounded in  law.  I say so because old age   per se does not   limit the capacity of a party to do the things required by   law   to   be   done personally by the said parties.

18.  Since the respondents case 1s  that  they lodged the caution to  protect the   interest of  their mothers therein, their said assertion brings into question their capacity to defend  the interest of  their said parents  given   the   fact that  they are   not   legally recognized as  their  mothers' agents for doing the acts they purported to do.

19. Under Order  9 Rule   2of  the  Civil  Procedure  Rules, only   the  recognized   agents   of    parties   to    suit   or applications may do certain things (for instance make applications, appearances or act  on  behalf of parties).

20.  By  dint of the provisions of Order 9 Rule (2)  (a)  for the  respondents to  qualify as agents of their mothers, for the    purpose  of   protecting  their  interests in the suit property, they ought to have had powers of attorney authorizing them  to  lodge the caution on   behalf of  the mothers. The rule provides as follows:-

“2. The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are-

(a) subject to  approval by  the  court in  any particular suit persons holding powers of attorney authorizing them to make such appearances and  applications and do  such acts on behalf of  parties;"

Whether  the  lodging  of   the  caution  herein  is  an affront to the applicant's right over the suit property and as  such unlawful?

21.  Whereas the   spouses of the  applicant are by  dint of the provisions of Section 93(2) entitled to lodge a caution to  protect their alleged unregistered interest  in  the   suit property, having determined that  the respondents required a  power of attorney  to  lodge the  impugned caution on  behalf of  their mothers, I find  and hold   that, in  the  absence of evidence that they had been appointed agents of their mothers for  the purpose of defending their mothers alleged interest, I agree with the applicant's contention that  the  lodging ofthe caution was an unnecessary affront    on  the  applicant’s rights  under Sections 24 and 25of the  Land   Registration Act,  2012. In any event, the respondents have not led any evidence means to the   productivity, upkeep and improvement of the   suit property from   the   time   it was registered in the name of the applicant.

Whether the   applicant   has made up a case for issuance of the orders sought?

22.  From  the evidence  on record,  it  1s  clear  that  the applicant  subdivided the  original suit  property  between his wives and  himself.  From the affidavit sworn by the respondents in objection to the applicants   proposed dealing with the suit property, the   respondents are apprehensive that if the applicant disposes off the suit he may   later on   be   a burden to their mothers.  Although these are genuine  concerns,   they  cannot   oust   the applicant  right to  deal with   the  suit property by  way  of transfer as contemplated Under Section 37 of  the  Land Registration Act,  2012.  The section provides:-

"37. (1) A proprietor may transfer land, a  lease or charge to  any person with  or without consideration, by an instrument in the prescribed form or  in  such other form as the registrar may in any particular case approve."

23. The upshot of the forgoing is that the application has merit and is allowed as prayed. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders accordingly

Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 14th day of November, 2014.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr .Githui holding brief for Mr Gakuhi Chege for the applicant

N IA  for the    respondent.

Peter : Court  Assistant

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

N IA   for the respondent.

Peter  : Court  Assistant

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE