James N. Lenges v Attorney General &11; others [2016] KEELC 138 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner won on the law but lost the case because his land registration could not be corrected in his favour.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the second adjudication at Poro 'B'
The second adjudication was unlawful as the register had been completed and no court had nullified the first adjudication
The Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement, as custodian of adjudication records, confirmed in a 1987 letter that the adjudication was to be repeated due to technical complications. The court held that once the register was complete and objection/appeal periods under ss.25 and 26 had lapsed, the process could not be re-opened, and the Director had no statutory power to nullify a completed adjudication; only a court could do so. The fresh adjudication and the resulting excision of 138 acres from Plot No. 30 were therefore unlawful.
Measurement of the land awarded to the Plaintiff
The court accepted the Director's 1987 letter that Plot No. 30 measured 155 acres
The objection ruling of 30th December 1982 did not state the measurement. The District Land Adjudication Officer's letter suggested 17 acres was ascertained on implementation, but the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement's letter of 29th May 1987 stated the plaintiff was awarded Plot No. 30 measuring 155 acres. As custodian of all adjudication records, the Director's word was accepted on the measurement.
Entitlement to the reliefs sought
Both prayers were refused; the claim was unproved
Revocation of the second adjudication would affect 42 other owners and Siampu Group Ranch, who were not parties and could not be bound without a hearing. Rectification was barred because Poro 'B' was a registered area, registration occurred on 23rd December 1992 as first registration, and s.143 of the repealed Registered Land Act forbids rectification of first registration. There was also no proof the 12th Defendant was the registered owner of the former Plot No. 30, defeating the injunction prayer.
Legal principles established
#- Once the adjudication register is complete and objection and appeal periods under sections 25 and 26 of the Land Adjudication Act have lapsed, the adjudication authority cannot re-open the adjudication process
- The Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement has no power under the Land Adjudication Act to nullify a completed adjudication process; only a court may nullify it
- Registration following first registration cannot be rectified under section 143 of the repealed Registered Land Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court over land claims (Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284; Registered Land Act, Cap 300)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James N. Lenges v Attorney General &11; others [2016] KEELC 138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/138/eng@2016-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.