Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutMiscellaneous Application dated 7/12/2021· [2022] KEELC 526 (KLR)

James Ng’ang’a Ngure & others v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others [2022] KEELC 526 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 March 2022
2,997 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an application to force title conversion, ruling that converting old land titles is a job for the Lands Ministry, not the courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, claiming to be bona fide purchasers and legal owners of approximately 2,050 acres of land (Nyakinywa Mugumo Tree Company Limited L.R. No. 1803/2-1461), moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 7/12/2021 seeking orders compelling the respondents to convert their titles from the repealed Government Lands Act (Cap 280) regime to the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012, and later sought injunction orders against alleged interference with quiet possession. The respondents opposed, arguing the application was bad in law, an abuse of process, and that title conversion was an administrative function reserved to the executive, barring the Court by separation of powers. The Court framed two issues: jurisdiction and the orders to issue. Holding that Section 6 of the Land Registration Act vests the conversion mandate in the Cabinet Secretary for Lands, who identifies registration units, directs survey, gazettes units and addresses objections under the Land Registration Units Order of 2017, the Court found the Applicants had not demonstrated they had initiated or exhausted that process, nor shown refusal or default by the respondents. Any grievance after exhausting the process would lie in judicial review. The application was further found defective: filed by one applicant 'and others' without authority, mutating between judicial review and injunction forms, and lacking leave under Order 53 Rule 1. Applying Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lilians' v Caltex Oil, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction, downed its tools, struck out the application as premature and without merit, and awarded costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC to compel conversion of titles from one land regime to another

Holding

The Court has no jurisdiction; the mandate to convert titles vests in the Cabinet Secretary and relevant administrative bodies

Reasoning

Section 6 of the Land Registration Act vests the power to constitute registration units and oversee conversion in the Cabinet Secretary. The process, governed by the Land Registration Units Order of 2017, is administrative and must be initiated and exhausted by the land owner through the designated agencies before judicial intervention. The Applicants neither initiated the process nor showed refusal or delay by the Respondents. Any complaint after following the procedure should be by judicial review.

p. 4
02

Competence of the application

Holding

The application was defective and incompetent - it did not disclose the 'others', lacked timely authority, mutated between judicial review and injunction forms, and lacked leave under Order 53

Reasoning

The application was instituted by one applicant 'and others' without identifying them or annexing written authority until much later, and the chronology of that authority suggested it was fabricated. Though filed as a miscellaneous application, the prayers were judicial review in nature, yet no leave under Order 53 Rule 1 was sought; the later request for leave in submissions could not cure the pleading.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Conversion of titles from one land registration regime to another is an administrative function vested in the Cabinet Secretary, not a matter a court may direct by order
  • All internal mechanisms for a statutory process must be exhausted before a party moves the Court (doctrine of exhaustion)
  • A court without jurisdiction must down its tools at once

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 17/12/2021 struck out as premature and devoid of merits
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2), Article 162(2)(b), Articles 42, 69, 70
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53 Rule 1
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012Section 6
  • Government Lands Act, Cap 280 (Repealed)
  • Registration of Titles Act
  • Land Titles Act
  • Registered Land Act
  • Land Registration Units Order2017

Cases cited (3)

  • George Kamau Macharia -v- Dexka Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Owners Of Motor Vessel lilians versus Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) 1 KLR
  • Onesmus Kamau Mungai –v- Phares Mwangi Kamau & 2 others
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Ng’ang’a Ngure & others v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others [2022] KEELC 526 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Miscellaneous Application dated 7/12/2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/526/eng@2022-03-23

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