[2009] KEHC 1198 (KLR)
The court held that the Land Registrar's report, which was prepared following a court order made by consent of both parties, is binding and determinative of the boundary between the two parcels of land. The report established that the Okwengu River forms the correct boundary between parcel No. 7 (respondent) and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1198 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Petro Ogero Owaka; Respondent: Silvanus Rapemo Obongo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 27 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Boundary Determination and Implementation of Registrar's Report
- Outcome
- Report of the Land Registrar adopted as the court's findings; Land Registrar and Surveyor ordered to plant the boundary as per the report.
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Land Registration, First Registration, Land Adjudication, Implementation of Registrar Reports
- 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
Petro Ogero Owaka
Applicant
Silvanus Rapemo Obongo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Boundary Determination and Implementation of Registrar's Report
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the boundary between land parcels WEST KASIPUL/KOTIENO KOKECH/7 and 8 should be determined as per the Land Registrar's report.
- 2 Whether the court should adopt the Land Registrar's report as its findings and order implementation of the boundary planting.
- 3 Whether either party can challenge the validity of the Land Registrar's report after it was ordered by consent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Land Registrar's report, which was prepared following a court order made by consent of both parties, is binding and determinative of the boundary between the two parcels of land. The report established that the Okwengu River forms the correct boundary between parcel No. 7 (respondent) and the neighboring land, as confirmed by previous adjudication, the Kosele African court, and an appeal to the Minister. The court found that the dispute was not a mere boundary dispute but had already been conclusively addressed through statutory land adjudication processes, and the applicant's challenge was without merit. Accordingly, the court adopted the Land Registrar's report...
Court Disposition
Report of the Land Registrar adopted as the court's findings; Land Registrar and Surveyor ordered to plant the boundary as per the report.
Orders
- The Land Registrar and Surveyor, Homa Bay/Suba/Rachuonyo Districts, are ordered to plant the boundary in terms of the report dated 30th November, 2006.
- The report of the Land Registrar is adopted as the findings of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
43 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT KISII
Civil Suit 27 of 2003
PETRO OGERO OWAKA ………….. PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
SILVANUS RAPEMO OBONGO … DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
On 21st June, 2006 Bauni, J. ordered the Land Registrar and Surveyor, Homa Bay District, to determine the boundaries between land parcels numbers WEST KASIPUL/KOTIENO KOKECH/7 AND 8.
The said order was made with consent of both parties. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of parcel No. 8 while the defendant is the registered proprietor of parcel No. 7. The two parcels of land share a common boundary.
A report was filed on 23rd April 2007. The salient findings by the Land Registrar were as follows:
“After my visit to this land twice in the company of surveyor, I came up with the following observation.
1. There exist a road of access leading to parcel No. 8 and is properly in use.
2. The road of access in the upper side separating parcel No. 7 is not existing since the proprietor of parcel No. 8 has occupied it as part of his land.
3. The boundary of parcel No. 7 the upper side is marked with huge live eucalypts trees and there are also tree stamp of Eucalyptus and Cyprus tree in a line which appears to be also forming a road leading to Adhanja’s land and leading to other parcel around Opok Range.
4. The Okwangu river also existing and to the other side of the river is Ngare’s land which is commonly accepted by the defendant to be his neighbours at the section in dispute.
5. Both the applicant and the defendant are origins of this area and appear to be from one clan, but from different families.
6. The land of land No. Kasipul/Kotieno Kowach/8 was subject to appeal to the minister and the same was implemented by the Land Registrar and the Surveyor on their visit on 5/9/1990 by confirming the river Okwengu to be the permanent boundary between the property of parcel No. 7 and his neighbour the eastern side who is Mzee Ngare.
7. The brothers to the applicant are using a section of the land towards the Okwengu river from the road leading to parcel of land No. 8.
8. It appears that the matter between the two parties is a land dispute and not a boundary dispute since the same was handled by the Land Adjudication under section 28 of Cap 284 when they failed to agree.
9. From the statement of applicant its true that his father Petro Ogeko has agreed and that it is why the such amendments to the map was done by the Land Registrar as stipulated under section and 22 of Cap 300 of the Registered Land Act and that is the reason that made the applicant to open a case in what his father had accepted.
10. The applicant acted on behalf of his old father
who doesn’t have any interest in the case.
CONCLUSION/DECISION
After listening carefully to the applicant and the defendant and his witness and having considered the statement of both parties, I have come to a conclusion that the boundary is as the place shown by the defendant and his witness as it appears in the map to be reaching the river Okwengu that forms his boundary with Mzee Ngare who also reaches river Okwengu as confirmed by his family members to be his boundary with the defendant.
All such case were properly handled by the land adjudication and therefore no such a case was left undone which the applicant is pursuing. In essence, this is a first registration and such boundary planted by the Kosele African court and confirmed by the appeal to Minister is the correct boundary, as the elders in the area were caused to help in determining the dispute on boundary.
However, the defendant has the right to claim his land to reach the Okwengu River which is the boundary of the land and the applicant should desist from interfering with the land belonging to the defendant.
Meanwhile the Land Registrar and the Surveyor should be given a fresh order to plant the boundary so that the dispute can be settled once and for all.
Dated this 30 day of November 2006. ”
On 17th December, 2008 the report was read out to the parties by this court’s Deputy Registrar.
On 26th November, 2008 the plaintiff filed an application seeking to have the Executive Officer of this court empowered to sign the transfer forms and the Land Registrar authorized to implement the findings in the said report.
From the contents of the report which was ordered by consent, none of the parties should challenge the validity of the same. The report is now adopted as findings of this court and the Land Registrar and the Surveyor, Homa Bay/Suba/Rachuonyo Districts are hereby ordered to plant the boundary in terms of the report dated 30th November, 2006. Mention on 1/12/2009.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISII THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.
2/11/2009
Before D. Musinga, J.
Nyangaga – cc
Applicant – present
N/A for the Respondent
Order:Ruling delivered in open court.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE.