[2025] KEELC 3694 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was not seeking new reliefs but was seeking enforcement of the Land Registrar's decision, and that the statutory process had been followed. The court emphasized that the input of the Land Registrar and surveyor is necessary for boundary determination, and there was no evidence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3694 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Faith Jamila Nthenge; Respondent: Kandei ole Katet Oloilunya; Interested Party: County Surveyor, Kajiado County; Interested Party: County Land registrar, Kajiado County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Land Registration, Enforcement of Registrar Orders
- 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
Faith Jamila Nthenge
Applicant
Kandei ole Katet Oloilunya
Respondent
County Surveyor, Kajiado County
Interested Party
County Land registrar, Kajiado County
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objection on the manner of commencement of proceedings is merited.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce the Land Registrar's decision under Section 22 of the Land Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was not seeking new reliefs but was seeking enforcement of the Land Registrar's decision, and that the statutory process had been followed. The court emphasized that the input of the Land Registrar and surveyor is necessary for boundary determination, and there was no evidence of an appeal against the Land Registrar's decision. The preliminary objection, which challenged the manner of commencement and jurisdiction, was found to lack merit as the application was properly before the court for enforcement purposes. Accordingly, the preliminary objection was dismissed.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection dated 4th October 2024 is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Nthenge v Oloilunya; County Surveyor, Kajiado County & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3694 (KLR) (5 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3694 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E020 of 2024
LC Komingoi, J
May 5, 2025
Between
Faith Jamila Nthenge
Applicant
and
Kandei ole Katet Oloilunya
Respondent
and
County Surveyor, Kajiado County
Interested Party
County Land registrar, Kajiado County
Interested Party
(IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULING/ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT, 2012)
Ruling
_ 1. The Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2024, sought orders that the registered area for land parcel No. Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/2XX4 be amended to tally with the Registry Index Map and the Area List.
2. In response, the 1st Respondent filed the Preliminary Objection dated 4th October 2024. The gist of the Preliminary Objection is the manner in which the proceedings were commenced.
3. On the 7th October 2024, the Court directed that the Preliminary Objection be canvassed by way of written submissions.
4. I have considered the grounds of the Preliminary Objection, the rival submissions and the authorities cited. The issue for determination is whether the Preliminary Objection is merited.
5. I agree with the Applicant’s submissions that she is not seeking new reliefs and/or remedies but the enforcement of the decision of the Land Registrar made under Section 19 of the Land Registration Act.
6. I find that the input of the Land Registrar is required for the determination of the boundaries. It is the input of the land surveyor that is required to be able to guide the Land Registrar. In the case of Azzuri Properties VS Pink Properties Ltd [2018] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain boundary disputes in the first instance and that parties are bound to follow the statutory mechanism for resolution.
7. I have looked at the prayers in the Notice of Motion and I find that they are merely to give effect to the decision of the Land Registrar. There is no evidence that there is an appeal against the said decision.
8. I find no merit in the Preliminary Objection and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY 2025. L.KOMINGOIJUDGE