Republic v District Land Registrar & 4 others Ex parte Rampai Ole Saidimu [2021] KEELC 1515 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered the Land Registrar to implement a 2017 boundary ruling but clarified you cannot use judicial review against private neighbours.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent's failure to implement his boundary determination dated 17th January 2017 was reviewable administrative conduct
Yes - the failure amounted to procedural impropriety, breached natural justice and Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act and Articles 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution, warranting mandamus
The Land Registrar is statutorily mandated to determine boundary disputes and had ruled that beacons be fixed 30 days after his ruling if no objection was filed. No objection was filed by the Respondents. More than four years passed without implementation despite several requests by the Applicant. The court found the inaction irrational and procedurally improper, infringing the Applicant's constitutional rights.
Whether an order of prohibition could issue against the 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents
No - they are not public officials and judicial review remedies lie only against public bodies; the Applicant must pursue a civil suit
The court held that the remedy of judicial review is available only against actions of public officials. The 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents are private individuals, so prohibition could not issue against them. The Applicant retains a remedy to seek restraining orders against them in an ordinary civil suit.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review grounds are classified as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety (Lord Diplock, CCSU)
- A person seeking mandamus must show a legal right to the performance of a legal duty that is imperative and of a public nature
- The remedy of judicial review is only available against actions of public officials
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 1st Respondent herein to take any appropriate action to stop the 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents from further encroaching and/or trespassing on the Applicant's portion of land and adhere with the site visit reports by the District Surveyor's office and the Land Registrar's both dated 4th October, 2016 and 17th January, 2017 respectively advising parties to maintain and respect the boundaries as determined.
- 2.The costs of this application are awarded to the ex parte Applicant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 53(1), (2), (3) & (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Sections 8 & 9 of the Law Reform Act Cap 26, and the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v District Land Registrar & 4 others Ex parte Rampai Ole Saidimu [2021] KEELC 1515 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC. Misc. Application No. 18 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1515/eng@2021-10-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.