Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherCivil Suit No 55 of 2020· [2021] KEELC 4255 (KLR)

Kiprono Chemchor Kentagor v Boit Thomas Kimutai & 5 others [2021] KEELC 4255 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 January 2021
1,816 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Land Registrar must first fix disputed land boundaries before any court can hear the case, and adverse possession claims survive a landowner's death.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Environment and Land Court ruling at Eldoret by M. A. Odeny, J, determined a preliminary objection dated 5th October 2020 against the plaintiff's application dated 21st September 2020 (a notice of motion for temporary injunction) and the plaint filed on the same date. The plaintiff, registered owner of E/MARAKWET/KATUMOI/364, complained that the defendants, beneficiaries of the deceased registered owners of the adjoining parcel E/MARAKWET/KATUMOI/363, had engaged a surveyor to place beacons at variance with a long-standing sisal boundary said to date from 1961 and a 1976 survey. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the map relied on by the defendants was improper and an order directing the County Land Registrar to regularise the maps, with an alternative prayer for adverse possession. The defendants objected that the court lacked jurisdiction under section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act because the dispute concerned boundaries of registered land, that the adverse possession claim was defective as the registered owners were deceased, and that they lacked locus standi. Applying the Mukisa Biscuit threshold, the court found the dispute was a boundary dispute which must first go to the Land Registrar under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, agreeing with George Kamau Macharia v Dexka Limited and Wills Ocholla v Mary Ndege that the suit was prematurely before the court. However, it rejected the contention that adverse possession cannot be claimed against a deceased proprietor's estate, relying on section 30(f) of the Registered Land Act and section 2 of the Law Reform Act as analysed in Karuntimi Raiji v M'Makinya M'Itunga, and held the locus standi ground required evidence and was not a pure point of law. The preliminary objection was upheld with costs to the defendants, the injunction application was not determined on its merits, and the plaintiff was left free to pursue the Land Registrar to fix the boundary.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over boundary disputes of registered land

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction where the dispute concerns boundaries of registered land that have not been fixed by the Land Registrar under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act

Reasoning

The pleadings and affidavit show the dispute was triggered by a survey/beacon-picking exercise and concerns whether a sisal boundary marked the correct limit between parcels 363 and 364. Section 18(2) bars the court from entertaining such disputes until the Registrar fixes boundaries under section 19. The court must not usurp the Registrar's mandate, which would duplicate functions and waste resources.

p. 3
02

Adverse possession against the estate of a deceased registered owner

Holding

The argument that adverse possession cannot be claimed against a deceased registered owner's estate is untenable; such claims survive death under section 30(f) of the Registered Land Act and section 2 of the Law Reform Act

Reasoning

The court relied on Phyllis Wanjiru Kamau v Wilson Gichuhi Gachagwe and the Court of Appeal's decision in Karuntimi Raiji v M'Makinya M'Itunga, which held that section 30(f) of the Registered Land Act (overriding interests) and section 2 of the Law Reform Act (survival of causes of action) mean claims for adverse possession pass to the deceased's estate.

p. 3
03

Locus standi of the deceased owners' beneficiaries as defendants

Holding

The objection that the defendants lack locus standi did not meet the threshold of a preliminary objection as it requires ascertainment of facts

Reasoning

The court held that the other issues in the preliminary objection would require evidence to prove and therefore fell outside the Mukisa Biscuit threshold that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may not entertain proceedings relating to a dispute as to boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined under section 18 of the Land Registration Act
  • A claim for adverse possession survives the death of the registered proprietor

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 5th October 2020 is upheld with costs to the defendants
  2. 2.The applicant is at liberty to follow the right process with the Land Registrar to fix the boundary
  3. 3.The merits of the application for injunction were not determined

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Actsection 18(2)
  • Land Registration Actsection 19(1),(2),(3)
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)section 30(f)
  • Law Reform Actsection 2(1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd –vs.- West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 696
  • GEORGE KAMAU MACHARIA V DEXKA LIMITED
    [2019] eKLR
  • Wills Ocholla vs. Mary Ndege
    (2016) eKLR
  • PHYLLIS WANJIRU KAMAU V WILSON GICHUHI GACHAGWE & 2 OTHERS
    [2019] eKLR
  • KARUNTIMI RAIJI V. M'MAKINYA M'ITUNGA
    (2013) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 18(2), Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012 (bar on court entertaining boundary disputes before determination by the Land Registrar)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiprono Chemchor Kentagor v Boit Thomas Kimutai & 5 others [2021] KEELC 4255 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Suit No 55 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4255/eng@2021-01-28

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