Simon Pasua Ole Kaanto v Chief Land Registrar; Safes & Locks (K) Limited & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 4284 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's bid to block dealings on his former Kajiado plot because he waited 24 years and couldn't pinpoint which rights were violated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35 was violated by the Chief Land Registrar
No violation; the Respondent supplied a Green Card extract of the Land Register confirming ownership, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate what right or fundamental freedom the information was required to protect
The court noted the Respondent gave the Petitioner a copy of the Green Card, an extract of the Land Register confirming records of ownership. The Land Records had since changed hands as evidenced by the Certificate of Official Search. Under Article 35, access to information must be for the exercise or protection of a right or fundamental freedom, which the Petitioner failed to demonstrate. Any limitation was justified under Article 24.
Whether the Petition is barred by limitation and laches given the 24-year delay since the 1992 transfer
Yes; the claim is statute-barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the Petitioner is guilty of laches
The Petition was filed 24 years after the 1st Interested Party was registered as owner. The Petitioner did not explain the delay, did not sue the 1st Interested Party, and did not join the current owner of the suit land. Applying section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the reasoning in the Kenyatta University petition, the court found the delay unjustifiable and the claim a cover-up caught by limitation.
Whether the transfer of the suit land to the 1st Interested Party was procedurally regular
The court inferred the transfer process was duly adhered to
The Registrar, as custodian of land records, entered details in the register and availed the Green Card to the Petitioner confirming ownership. The Mutation Form annexed to the 2nd Interested Party's affidavit showed the Petitioner himself undertook the mutation and subdivided the land. From this the court inferred the transfer process was duly adhered to.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner alleging constitutional infringement must state and identify the rights violated with precision and how they were infringed
- Constitutional petitions are subject to general principles of law including limitation; delay of over 20 years in seeking enforcement is unjustifiable
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition dated 25th January 2016 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Petition awarded to the Respondent and the 2nd Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 & 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (enforcement of the Bill of Rights)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mary Njiiri Muruga & 2 others v Grace Njeri Mugane & another [2019] KEELC 554 (KLR)[2019] KEELC 554 (KLR)26 Nov 2019
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simon Pasua Ole Kaanto v Chief Land Registrar; Safes & Locks (K) Limited & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 4284 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Petition No. 510 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4284/eng@2019-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.