[2016] KEELC 754 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 754 (KLR)

The court found that the dispute between the parties is a boundary dispute concerning registered land parcels Kisumu/Karateng/298 and 296. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act mandates that such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar before the court can exercise jurisdiction. The Plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 754 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Wills Ocholla; Defendant: Mary Ndege
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 137 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit struck out for want of jurisdiction; Defendant's preliminary objection upheld.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Jurisdiction of Court, Land Registration Act, Preliminary Objection, Land Registrar Procedure
Source Language
en
Land and Property Boundary Disputes Jurisdiction of Court Land Registration Act Preliminary Objection Land Registrar Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wills Ocholla

Plaintiff

Mary Ndege

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the main issue in the suit is a boundary dispute and if so whether it has been determined in accordance with Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act by the Land Registrar.
  2. 2 Who is liable to pay the costs of the preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute between the parties is a boundary dispute concerning registered land parcels Kisumu/Karateng/298 and 296. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act mandates that such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar before the court can exercise jurisdiction. The Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of a Land Registrar's determination, and the County Surveyor's report merely recommended referral to the Land Registrar, not a resolution. Consequently, the Plaintiff's suit was premature, and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The Defendant's preliminary objection was upheld, and the suit was struck out with costs to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit struck out for want of jurisdiction; Defendant's preliminary objection upheld.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's suit commenced through the plaint dated and filed on 5th June 2015 is struck out with costs to the Defendant.