Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC No. 46 of 2017 (Judicial Review)· [2020] KEELC 3786 (KLR)

Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Bondo & another; Ex-parte: Dickson Odongo Okeno ;Jack Jakinda Ojuok(Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 3786 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2020
2,332 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that county commissioners cannot decide land disputes, but a registrar's boundary summons against the family was valid.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex-parte Applicant sought certiorari to quash an order of the Deputy County Commissioner Bondo dated 15th June 2017 and a Boundary Dispute Summons dated 21st June 2017 issued by the District Land Registrar Bondo, together with prohibition against the Registrar visiting and defining boundaries of parcels North Sakwa/Nyawita/377, 795, 376 and 796. The Applicant claimed his family had cultivated a portion of Parcel 796 from time immemorial, that its registration in the name of the Interested Party's deceased father was fraudulent, and that the summons was invalid because the registered proprietors were deceased and unrepresented by administrators. The Interested Party countered that boundaries established at adjudication were intact until the Applicant destroyed them, that the Registrar could lawfully fix boundaries under Section 19(1) of the Land Registration Act on the application of an interested person, and that he had since obtained a grant of letters of administration. The court held it premature to dismiss the suit for the Applicant's failure to file submissions absent proof of service of the order requiring them. It held the Deputy County Commissioner's order ultra vires, as land jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Environment and Land Court and boundary determination belongs to the Land Registrar. The Boundary Dispute Summons was held proper in law: the Interested Party qualified as an interested person with standing, and notice to occupiers satisfied Section 19(1). Certiorari issued only against the Deputy County Commissioner's order; the remaining prayers were declined, with the applicant awarded one-third of the costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the Deputy County Commissioner's order of 15th June 2017

Holding

The order was ultra vires and invalid; the Deputy County Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine land disputes and issued it without hearing the Applicant

Reasoning

Although the Interested Party characterised the letter as advisory and administrative, the 1st Defendant pronounced himself on the dispute and, without giving the Applicant a hearing, ordered a stop to activities on the land. Land jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and boundary determination belongs to the Land Registrar under Section 19 of the Land Registration Act.

p. 3
02

Validity of the Boundary Dispute Summons issued by the Land Registrar

Holding

The summons was valid; the Interested Party had standing as an interested person and notice to occupiers sufficed notwithstanding the deaths of registered proprietors

Reasoning

Section 19(1) of the Land Registration Act requires notice to owners and occupiers where an interested person applies. Applying Black's Law Dictionary's definition of an interested person, the Interested Party, as a son of the deceased registered owner with a property interest in the estate, had standing. Since the Deputy Land Registrar notified the occupiers of Parcels 377 and 376, the death of the registered proprietors did not invalidate the notice.

p. 3
03

Whether the suit should be dismissed for the Applicant's failure to file submissions

Holding

It was premature to dismiss the suit as there was no proof the Applicant had been served with the order to file submissions

Reasoning

The court order of 24th October 2019 directed the Applicant to file submissions within 14 days and required the Interested Party to serve the order within 2 days. The Interested Party filed no affidavit of service. Without evidence that the Applicant was served and knowingly failed to comply, dismissal would be premature.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to environment and land lies with the Environment and Land Court
  • A District Commissioner/administrative officer has no power to determine land disputes; such an order is ultra vires
  • A person with a property interest in a deceased registered owner's estate qualifies as an 'interested person' with standing to request boundary ascertainment under Section 19(1) of the Land Registration Act
  • Notice of boundary ascertainment under Section 19(1) applies to both owners and occupiers; the death of the registered proprietor does not invalidate the summons where occupiers are notified

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy County Commissioner Bondo dated 15th June 2017 as ultra vires
  2. 2.All prayers in respect of the Boundary Dispute Summons issued by the Deputy Land Registrar Bondo/Rarieda District, and the decision to visit and define the precise position of land parcels North Sakwa/Nyawita/377, 795, 376 and 796, are declined
  3. 3.The applicant to be paid 1/3 of the costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 4
  • Land Registration ActSection 19(1) and 19(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others
    [2008] 2 EA 300
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Environment and Land Court Act; judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Bondo & another; Ex-parte: Dickson Odongo Okeno ;Jack Jakinda Ojuok(Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 3786 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC No. 46 of 2017 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3786/eng@2020-02-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.