Jacob Ohuru Omolo & another v Ismael Otieno Otogo & 2 others [2022] KEELC 1045 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a challenge to a land boundary review, confirming that officials acted fairly after hearing the landowner.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the boundary review process initiated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents was a fair administrative action under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Actions Act
Yes. The applicants were accorded an opportunity to be heard under sections 14 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, and the resulting action was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair
The court noted that documents 'JOO-1', 'IOO-2' and 'JOO-2' show the 1st applicant and three others were given an opportunity to be heard as required by sections 14 and 19 of the LRA. The proceedings (JOO-03) were in fact in favour of the 1st applicant. Relying on Re Hebtullah Properties Ltd on audi alteram partem, the court held the fair hearing requirement was met and the proposed action was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
Whether the court lacked jurisdiction given section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act
The 1st respondent argued the court was devoid of jurisdiction; the court did not expressly rule on this objection but found the letters were technical in nature and could be rejected or allowed depending on the outcome of the boundary process
The court observed that sections 18 and 19 of the LRA govern boundaries of registered land and that section 18(2) bars court proceedings before boundary determination. It characterized the letters initiating boundary review as technical, with the court retaining discretion to accept or reject any report generated pursuant to them, following CD Desouza v BR Sharma.
Legal principles established
#- No court shall entertain any action or proceeding relating to boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined under the Land Registration Act
- The right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is satisfied where an affected party is given an opportunity to be heard before an administrative boundary decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th June 2019 and filed in court on even date is hereby disallowed with costs to the 1st respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 47 of the Constitution; sections 3, 4 and 7(1)(a) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015; Order 53(1)(1), (2), (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jacob Ohuru Omolo & another v Ismael Otieno Otogo & 2 others [2022] KEELC 1045 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of Motion dated 28th June 2019 (Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1045/eng@2022-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.