[2016] KEELC 796 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 796 (KLR)

The court found that the dispute between the parties was clearly a boundary dispute between two registered parcels of land. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, expressly requires that such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar before the court can assume jurisdiction. The Plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 796 (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
Environment & Land Case 137 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit struck out with costs to the Defendant.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Jurisdiction of Court, Land Registration, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
en
Land and Property Boundary Disputes Jurisdiction of Court Land Registration Preliminary Objection

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 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 by the Land Registrar as required by Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter before the Land Registrar has determined the boundary dispute.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute between the parties was clearly a boundary dispute between two registered parcels of land. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, expressly requires that such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar before the court can assume jurisdiction. The Plaintiff had not obtained a determination from the Land Registrar, and the County Surveyor's report did not suffice as a substitute. The Plaintiff's approach to the court was therefore premature, and the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Consequently, the Defendant's preliminary objection was upheld, and the Plaintiff's suit was struck out with costs to the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit struck out with costs to the Defendant.

Orders

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