[2011] KEHC 2202 (KLR)
The court found that the Land Registrar had already performed the statutory duty required under Sections 21 and 22 of the Registered Land Act by visiting the site, hearing the parties, and filing a report. The report concluded that there was no boundary dispute but rather a land claim, which is outside the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2202 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ezekiel Kamau Wainaina; Respondent: The Land Registrar, Thika District
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 7 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Substantive Motion
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested parties
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Mandamus, Boundary Disputes, Statutory Duties, Land Claims
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ezekiel Kamau Wainaina
Applicant
The Land Registrar, Thika District
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Substantive Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Registrar fulfilled the statutory duty under Sections 21 and 22 of the Registered Land Act regarding boundary determination.
- 2 Whether the dispute before the court was a boundary dispute or a land claim outside the jurisdiction of the Land Registrar.
- 3 Whether judicial review by way of mandamus is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Land Registrar had already performed the statutory duty required under Sections 21 and 22 of the Registered Land Act by visiting the site, hearing the parties, and filing a report. The report concluded that there was no boundary dispute but rather a land claim, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Land Registrar. Since the statutory duty had been fulfilled and the dispute was not a boundary issue, there was nothing left for the court to compel by way of mandamus. The court held that judicial review was not the appropriate procedure for resolving the underlying land claim, which required viva voce evidence and should be pursued through a civil suit or the Land...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested parties
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
JR. ELC NO. 7 OF 2010
EZEKIEL KAMAU WAINAINA.............................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE LAND REGISTRAR, THIKA DISTRICT................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The ex-parte applicant Ezekiel Kamau Wainaina sought leave which was granted to apply for an order of Mandamus directed at the respondent, the Land Registrar, Thika District to cause survey, indicate, determine, and fix on the ground the position of the respective boundaries adjoining of the one hand land parcels No.s Loc. 16/Gatura/1301 and Loc. 16/Gatura/1383 and, on the other, land parcels Loc. 16/Gatura/1301 and Loc. 16/Gatura1298. Upon filing the substantive Notice of Motion the Land Registrar was mandated to perform the statutory duty under Sections 21 and 22 of the Registered Land Act Cap 300 Laws of Kenya and serve the report upon the ex-parte applicant and interested parties and also file the same in court.
There is evidence in this record that indeed the Land Registrar performed the statutory duties and filed the report. In that report the Registrar confirmed, upon visiting the site, that there existed no boundary dispute between the parties but a land claim. The ex-parte applicant is said to have exercised his right of appeal to the Chief Land Registrar who concurred with the ruling of the respondent.
It is the respondent’s case that the statutory duty only empowers the Land Registrar to hear parties, determine and indicate the position of an uncertain or disputed boundary. The respondent can only indicate or define the precise position of the boundaries of a parcel or parts thereof. Where one parcel of land is smaller than envisaged in Section 21 of the Registered Land Act aforesaid, and is claiming a portion or extension of the boundary onto another parcel as in the instant case, this becomes a land claim and beyond the jurisdiction of a Land Registrar. It is the respondent’s case that having visited the parcels of land as provided under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, and submitted the ruling which has been acknowledged by all the parties, the statutory duties were fulfilled. Any party who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the respondent and The Chief Land Registrar ought to have moved the court by way of a civil suit and therefore the procedure adopted by the ex-parte applicant is an abuse of the court process.
Leaned counsel appearing for the parties herein have filed submissions and cited some authorities. These have been of assistance to the court. The report by the respondent was not conclusive and therefore did not resolve the issues between the parties. Such a report cannot be executed by way of Judicial Review because it is obvious viva voce evidence would be required to determine the dispute. I would therefore agree, with respect, that the procedure adopted by the ex-parte applicant is misplaced because affidavit evidence cannot resolve the dispute.
In the case of Jotham Mulati Welamodi versus The Chairman Electoral Commission of Kenya (2002) KLR the court held, Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for compelling a person to perform the duty imposed by statute which duty he has refused to perform. It was also held that mandamus looks at the present situation and aims at enforcing a duty which has not been done and unlike certiorari mandamus does quash that which has been done. In the instant case, the respondent performed the statutory duty conferred by law. There is nothing that remained for the court to compel the respondent to perform. The District Land Registrar was emphatic that, as no evidence was adduced to show that the boundary has been shifted this dispute should not be treated as a boundary dispute, it is a land claim which is beyond the jurisdiction of that office.
An unsolicited advice was offered to the ex-parte applicant by the District Land Registrar to pursue his claim through the Land Dispute Tribunal or a court of law. With respect, I agree and find that the application before me is misconceived and therefore fails. The same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent and interested parties.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 26th day of May, 2011.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE