[2010] KEHC 73 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 73 (KLR)

The court found that although the District Land Registrar conducted proceedings and made an award regarding the disputed boundary, there was no evidence that the interested party was served with a hearing notice to attend the proceedings before the Registrar. Section 22(1) of the Registered Land Act requires the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 73 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Land Registrar Kilifi; Applicant: Hashim Mohamed Ahmed; Defendant: Eleonora Cozzi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Adoption of Award and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of proper service of notice to the interested party as required by law.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Judicial Review, Mandamus, Service of Notice, Land Registration, Enforcement of Registrar Award
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Judicial Review Mandamus Service of Notice Land Registration Enforcement of Registrar Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

District Land Registrar Kilifi

Respondent

Hashim Mohamed Ahmed

Applicant

Eleonora Cozzi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Adoption of Award and Consequential Orders

  1. 1 Whether the award of the District Land Registrar Kilifi/Kaloleni dated 17th October 2007 should be adopted as an order of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the interested party was properly served with notice to attend the boundary ascertainment proceedings as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to serve notice to the interested party invalidates the proceedings and the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the District Land Registrar conducted proceedings and made an award regarding the disputed boundary, there was no evidence that the interested party was served with a hearing notice to attend the proceedings before the Registrar. Section 22(1) of the Registered Land Act requires the Registrar to give notice to the owners and occupiers of the land adjoining the boundary of the intention to ascertain the boundary. The absence of proof of such service was a fatal procedural defect. As a result, the court declined to adopt the Registrar's award as an order of the court, holding that compliance with statutory notice requirements is mandatory and failure to do so...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of proper service of notice to the interested party as required by law.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 3rd December 2008 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.