[2022] KEELC 14645 (KLR)
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a boundary dispute unless the boundaries have first been determined by the Land Registrar, as mandated by Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act. Although the boundary between the parcels in question had already been determined, the Plaintiffs and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 14645 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gabriel Onsongo Okondo; Plaintiff: Elizabeth Kemunto Ongaki; Plaintiff: Amos Lemangen Ole Kaitei; Plaintiff: Vera Odera Ogembo; Plaintiff: David L.C. Mwaniki; Plaintiff: Lilian Wanjiku Mechemi; Plaintiff: Beatrice Wanjira Kamau; Plaintiff: Hudson Lodenyo; Plaintiff: Joseph Menge; Plaintiff: Lilian Njeri Thuku; Plaintiff: John Gichuha Thumbi; Defendant: Sangiri Ole Kiok; Defendant: Land Registrar, Kajiado North; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 74 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Boundary Dispute and Directions for Site Visit
- Outcome
- Fresh boundary determination allowed at the request and cost of Plaintiffs and Interested Party; Defendants exempted from costs.
- Judges
- MN Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Land Registration, Jurisdiction of Land Registrar
- 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
Gabriel Onsongo Okondo
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Kemunto Ongaki
Plaintiff
Amos Lemangen Ole Kaitei
Plaintiff
Vera Odera Ogembo
Plaintiff
David L.C. Mwaniki
Plaintiff
Lilian Wanjiku Mechemi
Plaintiff
Beatrice Wanjira Kamau
Plaintiff
Hudson Lodenyo
Plaintiff
Joseph Menge
Plaintiff
Lilian Njeri Thuku
Plaintiff
John Gichuha Thumbi
Plaintiff
Sangiri Ole Kiok
Defendant
Land Registrar, Kajiado North
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Boundary Dispute and Directions for Site Visit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the boundary dispute before determination by the Land Registrar.
- 2 Whether a fresh boundary determination should be conducted in the presence of the Plaintiffs and Interested Party.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of a fresh site visit for boundary determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a boundary dispute unless the boundaries have first been determined by the Land Registrar, as mandated by Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act. Although the boundary between the parcels in question had already been determined, the Plaintiffs and the Interested Party raised concerns about the fairness and inclusivity of the previous process. The court, therefore, reluctantly allowed a fresh boundary determination to be conducted in their presence. However, it ordered that only the Plaintiffs and the Interested Party should bear the costs of the new site visit, and the Defendants should not be required to contribute to these...
Court Disposition
Fresh boundary determination allowed at the request and cost of Plaintiffs and Interested Party; Defendants exempted from costs.
Orders
- A fresh boundary determination to be conducted in the presence of the Plaintiffs and Interested Party.
- The Plaintiffs and Interested Party shall bear the full costs of the site visit and determination exercise.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
Okondo & 10 others v Kiok & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 74 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 14645 (KLR) (3 November 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 14645 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Environment & Land Case 74 of 2019
MN Gicheru, J
November 3, 2022
Between
Gabriel Onsongo Okondo
1st Plaintiff
Elizabeth Kemunto Ongaki
2nd Plaintiff
Amos Lemangen Ole Kaitei
3rd Plaintiff
Vera Odera Ogembo
4th Plaintiff
David L.C. Mwaniki
5th Plaintiff
Lilian Wanjiku Mechemi
6th Plaintiff
Beatrice Wanjira Kamau
7th Plaintiff
Hudson Lodenyo
8th Plaintiff
Joseph Menge
9th Plaintiff
Lilian Njeri Thuku
10th Plaintiff
John Gichuha Thumbi
11th Plaintiff
and
Sangiri Ole Kiok
1st Defendant
Land Registrar, Kajiado North
2nd Defendant
Attorney General
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. On 5/5/2022, an order was made that there be a ruling today on the way forward in this matter. Parties were expected to file written submissions by 5/9/2022. The Plaintiffs filed their submissions on 5/5/2022 while the Defendants and the Interested Parties field theirs within the timelines set by the court.
2. I have perused the entire record as well as the submissions by all the parties.It is clear that all the parties agree that at the heart of the matter in this case is a boundary dispute between two parcels namely, Kajiado/Loodariak/123 and Kajiado Loodariak/876. LR. 123 was owned by the first Defendant while L.R. 876 was owned by the Interested Party.
3. All the Plaintiffs bought land from the Interested Party. In their submissions dated 26/4/2022, they want a fresh boundary determination in their presence because the one that took place on 20/11/2017 did not involve them.Likewise, the Interested Party would like another site visit. He claims that the Land Registrar was treated to a lunch by the first Defendant while the Interested Party and his team waited at the site for hours.When the Land Registrar went to the site it was late and little time was left to do the actual site visit proceedings.These allegations have come up suddenly in submissions. They have not made before in form of an affidavit or pleading.
4. On the other hand, the first Defendant urges the court to adopt the Land Registrar’s Report because the Interested Party was present at the boundary determination and even contributed, together with the first defendant, to the costs of the exercise which amounted to Kshs. 79,000/-.
5. I find tht the jurisdiction to determine the dispute is vested in the Land Registrar by virtue of Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act which provides as follows."The court shall not entertain any action or other proceedings relating to a dispute as to the boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined in accordance with this section”.Secondly, I find that the boundary has already been determined but since the Plaintiffs and the Interested Party want a revisit, I will reluctantly allow the same but on the condition that they alone pay the costs of such visit.For avoidance of doubt, the Defendants should not pay anything for the exercise.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022. M.N. GICHERUJUDGE