Republic v Registrar of Titles, Nairobi Ex parte Ruth Mayoyo & 2 others; New Karen Ventures Limited (Interested Party) [2022] KEELC 855 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court quashed the Registrar of Titles' reconstruction of a land register because affected owners were never heard before the decision was made.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's reconstruction of the land register was procedurally flawed
The reconstruction was unlawful because the Respondent failed to hear the Ex parte Applicants' objections and did not demonstrate compliance with Section 33 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 and Rule 28 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017.
The Registrar gazetted a 60-day notice of intention to reconstruct the register. The Ex parte Applicants lodged a letter and objection, but the Respondent refused to accept service and reconstructed the register on 22nd July 2020 without hearing the objections. The allegations of frustrated service were uncontroverted, and the Applicants' letter was never answered. The court found the process tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Whether the Respondent was obliged to communicate its decision to the objectors
Although Section 33 does not require notification, fairness under Article 47 of the Constitution required the Respondent to inform the Ex parte Applicants of its decision and reasons.
The court held that while the statute does not expressly direct the Registrar to inform objectors of the outcome, fair administrative action under Article 47 demanded that the Applicants, whose objections had been lodged, be informed that reconstruction had already occurred rather than leaving them unaware when they filed the substantive motion.
Scope of judicial review remedies (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) in this context
Certiorari lies to quash a decision made without jurisdiction or in breach of natural justice; prohibition and mandamus issue against public bodies to restrain unlawful continuance of proceedings and compel performance of public duties respectively.
Adopting the KNEC v Republic Ex parte Gathenji principles, the court confirmed that judicial review concerns the decision-making process, and that these remedies are available against public bodies, including for departure from the rules of natural justice. Certiorari was appropriate to quash the reconstruction decision; prohibition and mandamus were appropriate to restrain further reconstruction and compel the hearing of the objections.
Legal principles established
#- The rules of natural justice make it mandatory for a party to be heard before any decision that is likely to affect their rights is made.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of certiorari removing into the court and quashing any decision and/or order of the Respondent reconstructing the land register for L.R. No. 6967 (orig. No. 5830/1/2) pursuant to Gazette Notice No. 3670 dated 22nd May 2020
- 2.An order of certiorari quashing any decision and/or order of the Respondent that interfered with the registers of the Applicants' parcels L.R. Nos. 6967/3, 6867/5 and 6967/6
- 3.An order of prohibition restraining the Respondent, his/her agents, officers, employees or any person acting under the Respondent's instructions from carrying out the proposed reconstruction of the land register for L.R. No. 6967 (orig. No. 5830/1/2) pursuant to Gazette Notice No. 3670 dated 22nd May 2020 before hearing and determining the Ex parte Applicants' objection dated August 2020
- 4.An order of mandamus compelling the Registrar of Titles, Nairobi County to hear and determine the Ex parte Applicants' objection dated 10th August 2020
- 5.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act (Cap 26), Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and Articles 27, 40, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Registrar of Titles, Nairobi Ex parte Ruth Mayoyo & 2 others; New Karen Ventures Limited (Interested Party) [2022] KEELC 855 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Judicial Review Application No. E009 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/855/eng@2022-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.