Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment and Land Judicial Review Case E010 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 18058 (KLR)

Republic v Chief Lands Registrar; First River Side Acres (Interested Party); NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Exparte)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
16 June 2023
2,016 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered the Chief Lands Registrar to reconstruct a missing deed file after the bank proved repeated follow-ups had failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
NCBA Bank Kenya PLC, as ex parte applicant, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Chief Lands Registrar to reconstruct the missing deed file for LR Number 4275/129 (Original Number 4275/64), Riverside Drive, Nairobi. The bank had advanced facilities to First River Side Acres (the interested party and registered lessee), secured by a 2015 legal charge and, after a change of user to multi-dwelling in 2020, a Replacement Charge of KES 70,000,000 and a Further Charge of KES 83,319,000. When the bank lodged the charges for registration, it was informed the deed file was missing and could not be traced; registration could not proceed until the file was reconstructed. Despite follow-ups with the Principal Secretary and Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands, and an application for reconstruction plus a Deed of Indemnity by the interested party, the Registrar did not act. Leave for judicial review was granted on July 4, 2022, and the substantive motion dated January 23, 2023 was canvassed by written submissions; only the applicant filed submissions. Wabwoto J framed two issues: whether a case for mandamus was made out, and costs. Applying the Gathenji Njoroge principles as restated in Commission on Administrative Justice v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board and R v Dudsheath ex parte Meredith, and section 33(5) of the Land Registration Act, the court held mandamus issues to enforce a public duty where no other appropriate remedy exists, found the motion merited, and ordered the Registrar to reconstruct the deed file. Although costs ordinarily follow the event, each party was directed to bear its own costs because the Respondent did not resist the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant made out a case for mandamus to compel reconstruction of the missing deed file

Holding

Yes; the Registrar has a public statutory duty under section 33(5) of the Land Registration Act to reconstruct a lost deed file, and the Applicant had no other appropriate remedy after repeated follow-ups failed.

Reasoning

The court applied the principles in Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge as restated in Commission on Administrative Justice v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board, and R v Dudsheath ex parte Meredith: mandamus issues to enforce a public duty where there is a specific legal right and no more convenient, beneficial and effectual remedy. The deed file was missing, the Replacement and Further Charges could not be registered, and the Respondent failed to act despite reminders and did not oppose the application.

02

Costs of the application

Holding

Although costs normally follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, each party was directed to bear its own costs because the Respondent did not resist the application.

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the general rule that costs follow the event and that a successful party should ordinarily get costs, but in its discretion departed from that rule since the Respondent filed no response or submissions and did not resist the application.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Mandamus will issue where there is a public duty to be performed and no other appropriate remedy is available
  • Under section 33(5) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 the Registrar has power to reconstruct a lost or destroyed land register after enquiries and 60 days' gazette notice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of Mandamus compelling the Chief Lands Registrar to reconstruct the deed file relating to all that piece of land known as land reference number 4275/129 (Original number 4275/64)
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 33(5)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27 (proviso)

Cases cited (4)

  • Commission on Administrative Justice vs Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board & 2 Others
    [2019] eKLR

    Principles guiding the grant of mandamus, restating Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge

  • Republic vs County Land Registrar, Makueni Lands Registry Ex-Parte Philes Mwikali Kioko & 2 Others
    [2021]
  • Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others

    Definition and scope of the order of mandamus as a command to perform a public duty

  • R v Dudsheath, ex parte, Meredith
    [1950] 2 ALL ER 741

    Mandamus is neither a writ of course nor of right; granted for public duty where no more appropriate remedy

Jurisdiction invoked
Judicial review jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Land Registration Act No. 8 of 2012 (order of mandamus)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Chief Lands Registrar; First River Side Acres (Interested Party); NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Exparte)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E010 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18058/eng@2023-06-16

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