Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELC 3825 (KLR)

Rwamba Waweru Karanja v Ole Koikai & another [2020] KEELC 3825 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 January 2020
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
1,581 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan courts cannot decide land boundary disputes until the Land Registrar officially fixes the boundary first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado on the Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 26th April 2019, brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Sections 18(2) and 20 of the Land Registration Act and Order 40 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendants sought the District Land Registrar's report of a meeting of 2nd December 2015 concerning a boundary dispute, or in the alternative a joint report by the District Land Registrar and the District Survey Office. The dispute concerns parcels subdivided from Kajiado/Kisaju/1695, with both parties claiming part of the southern border originally forming Kajiado/Kisaju/1747. The Plaintiff opposed the application, arguing the parcels no longer exist, that the Registrar had already filed a report, and that the application was an abuse of process. The court framed a single issue: whether the District Land Registrar should prepare a joint report with the District Survey Office. Holding that the dispute was genuinely a boundary dispute, and that the Registrar's earlier report dealt only with ownership per Green Card and not boundary determination, the court applied section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, which bars the court from entertaining boundary disputes until boundaries are determined under the statute, and followed Amos Mpeshe & 3 others v Salau Ole Sokon Modo. Finding no prejudice to the Plaintiff, the court allowed the application, directed the parties to comply with section 18(2) before proceeding with the suit, and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the dispute before the court is a boundary dispute requiring determination by the Land Registrar under section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act

Holding

The dispute is indeed a boundary dispute arising from subdivisions of one larger parcel, and the Land Registrar must determine the boundaries before the court entertains the suit

Reasoning

Both parties' parcels were resultant subdivisions of Kajiado/Kisaju/1695. The Plaintiff's own plaint and annexed summons of 7th August 2015 showed a boundary dispute over parcels 1890, 1746, 1747 and 1991. The Registrar's existing report dealt only with ownership per Green Card, not boundary determination, so section 18(2) required the boundary process first.

p. 2
02

Whether the Plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the District Land Registrar and District Survey Office determined the boundary and prepared a joint report

Holding

No prejudice would be suffered by the Plaintiff

Reasoning

Since the statute mandates the Registrar to deal with boundary disputes before court entertainment, the court could not foresee prejudice. The application was accordingly allowed with costs in the cause.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The court is barred from entertaining boundary disputes over registered land until the boundaries have been determined under the Land Registration Act
  • It is the Land Registrar who is mandated to fix boundaries to registered land

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The District Land Registrar and District Survey Office to determine the boundary and prepare a joint report in relation to the boundary dispute
  2. 2.Parties directed to adhere to the provisions of section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act before proceeding with the suit
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e)
  • Land Registration ActSections 18(2), 19, 20
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 10

Cases cited (4)

  • Dr. William Gacani V Charles Kirimi
    (2018) eKLR
  • George Kamau Macharia V Dexka Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Kivanga Estates Limited V National Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2017) eKLR
  • Amos Mpeshe & 3 others v Salau Ole Sokon Modo
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 18(2) and 20 of the Land Registration Act; Order 40 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rwamba Waweru Karanja v Ole Koikai & another [2020] KEELC 3825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3825/eng@2020-01-27

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