Republic v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others Ex Parte Block Seven Developers Limited [2020] KEELC 2713 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land registrar cannot cancel your title over a fraud claim without investigating it first and hearing you out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents had jurisdiction to rectify the register under section 79(2) of the Land Registration Act
No jurisdiction arose because fraud was never investigated or established; the decision was a nullity
The registrar's power to rectify for fraud arises only when fraud is alleged, investigated and established. The respondents relied wholly on the DCI's unverified assertion, carried out no investigation of their own, and acted after the DCI had concluded the registration was fraudulent. Since they exercised power they did not have, the decision was a nullity.
Whether the cancellation breached fair administrative action and natural justice
Yes; the applicant was condemned unheard in breach of Article 47 and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Section 79(4) of the Land Registration Act contemplates investigation and a hearing before rectification. Even absent regulations, the applicant was entitled to notice, an opportunity to be heard and written reasons under Article 47 and section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act. The respondents decided the registration was fraudulent before any hearing and never even proved service of the notice to surrender the title.
Whether the DCI could demand cancellation of the registration of land
No; the DCI's mandate was limited to investigation and its demand was an abuse of power
The DCI had no interest in the property and no power to demand cancellation of land dealings. It acted on the interested party's account without investigating, did not visit the City Court to verify the vesting order it called fake, and demanded cancellation while investigations were ongoing. The registrar erred in taking instructions from it.
Whether the refusal to issue a provisional certificate of title was lawful
No; it violated the applicant's right to fair administrative action and was unconstitutional and unlawful
The applicant applied for a provisional certificate after registration of the transfer and no reasons were ever given for refusing it. The court found that having lawfully acquired the property and complied with the conditions, the applicant was entitled to the certificate; the unexplained refusal violated the right to fair administrative action.
Legal principles established
#- A registrar may rectify a register for fraud under section 79(2) of the Land Registration Act only after fraud is alleged, investigated and established through a process respecting fair administrative action; mere suspicion or allegation is insufficient.
- A decision affecting legal rights made in breach of natural justice is outside the jurisdiction of the decision-making authority.
- A registered proprietor is entitled to fair administrative action and a hearing before registration is cancelled, even absent regulations under section 79(4) of the Land Registration Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Certiorari quashing the decision of the 1st and 2nd respondents of 17th January 2017 cancelling the registration of transfer of L.R No. 9042/574, I.R. 67346, including entry No. 5 in the register
- 2.Prohibition prohibiting the 1st and 2nd respondents from revoking the applicant's title over L.R No. 9042/574, I.R. 67346 in reliance on the decision of 17th January 2017
- 3.Mandamus compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents to issue the applicant a provisional certificate of title for L.R No. 9042/574, I.R. 67346 if the interested party does not surrender the original certificate of title
- 4.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant, payable by the interested party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review under the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 and Order 53; constitutional provisions Articles 47 and 162(2)(b) cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others Ex Parte Block Seven Developers Limited [2020] KEELC 2713 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC.JR.APPL. NO. 17 OF 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2713/eng@2020-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.