[2003] KEHC 236 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 236 (KLR)

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the boundary dispute because the statutory process under Section 21(4) of the Registered Land Act had not been followed. The parties were required to first have the boundaries determined by the Land Registrar and District Surveyor before approaching the court....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 236 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Silas Odhiambo Osodo; Respondent: Zacharia Onyando Auko
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 91 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; lower court suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Registered Land, Boundary Disputes, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Land and Property Registered Land Boundary Disputes Jurisdiction of Court

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silas Odhiambo Osodo

Appellant

Zacharia Onyando Auko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain a boundary dispute under the Registered Land Act before boundaries were determined by the Land Registrar and Surveyor.
  2. 2 Whether the suit before the lower court was competent in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the boundary dispute because the statutory process under Section 21(4) of the Registered Land Act had not been followed. The parties were required to first have the boundaries determined by the Land Registrar and District Surveyor before approaching the court. The lower court's order directing the Land Registrar and Surveyor to determine the boundaries was improper, as this was a step the parties themselves should have initiated. Consequently, the suit was a non-starter and should have been dismissed for contravening the law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; lower court suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The suit in the lower court is dismissed with costs.