Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedJudicial Review Application (Notice of Motion) dated 8th November 2023, Kajiado· [2024] KEELC 5353 (KLR)

Taiko & another v District Land Registrar, Kajiado & 3 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E015 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5353 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
11 July 2024
LKL. Komingoi
1,981 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex parte Applicants, administrators of the estate of Nkoi purduwo Kiroyia Maika holding parcel Kajiado/Elangata Wuas/17 (3083) in trust for twenty-five beneficiaries, sought judicial review orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against a ruling of the 1st Respondent dated 29th August 2023 adopting the District Surveyor, Kajiado's report of 8th August 2023 on boundary lines between several parcels, alleging denial of fair administrative action, incomplete beacon inspections and prejudice to pending ELC Cases No. 18 and 15 of 2020. The Respondents filed no response despite evidence of service; the application proceeded by written submissions. Komingoi J framed two issues: entitlement to the reliefs and costs. The court found that the Applicants were duly summoned, that their representatives attended the boundary hearings, gave testimony and pointed out beacon points, and that the surveyor's report clearly articulated its methodology. Judicial review being confined to the decision-making process rather than merits, the court held that the duration of the hearing was immaterial where the decision was not reached illegally, irrationally, unreasonably or without jurisdiction. The claim of prejudice to the pending suits failed for want of annexed pleadings, with the court noting the Registrar's statutory mandate under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act and a right of appeal. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs on 11th July 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants were accorded fair administrative action in the boundary determination

Holding

No breach of fair administrative action; the Applicants or their representatives attended the hearings, gave testimony and pointed out beacons

Reasoning

The court found that summons dated 6th June 2023 were addressed to persons listed in the certificate of confirmation of grant as holding the parcel in trust for beneficiaries. The surveyor's report showed owners of parcel 17 present, their testimony taken and a beacon point shown by them. Section 87(2) of the Land Registration Act also permits the Registrar to proceed notwithstanding a failure to attend.

p. 3
02

Whether the surveyor's methodology rendered the report and ruling unlawful

Holding

No; the report clearly articulated the methodology, including control points, AutoCAD plotting, georeferenced RIM scanning and satellite imagery

Reasoning

Judicial review examines process, not the sufficiency of evidence. The report explained how undisputed boundary points were used as controls and how data was generated. The alleged failure to visit certain beacons did not demonstrate illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness or absence of jurisdiction.

p. 4
03

Whether the ruling prejudiced pending ELC Cases No. 18 and 15 of 2020

Holding

Claim rejected; pleadings were not annexed and the Land Registrar is mandated under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act to resolve boundary disputes, with a right of appeal

Reasoning

The applicants did not annex the pleadings in the pending suits to enable the court to appreciate the alleged prejudice. Section 18 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 mandates the Registrar to resolve boundary disputes and an aggrieved party has a right of appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
  • The duration or manner of a hearing is immaterial so long as the decision was not reached illegally, irrationally, unreasonably or without jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated (leave granted 8th November 2023) is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Law Reform ActSections 8(2) and 9
  • Civil Procedure Rules (Order 53)Rules 1(1),(2),(4), 3 and 4
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47(1) and (2)
  • Fair Administrative Action ActSections 4 and 4(3)(1)
  • Land Registration ActSections 18, 19, 86 and 87(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Republic v Commission of Customs Services Ex parte Imperial Bank Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service
    [1985] A.C. 374
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd
    [2002] eKLR
  • Republic v Chief Land Registrar Ex parte Stephen Karanja Kungu
    [2014] eKLR
  • Republic v Kenya National Examinations Council ex parte Gathenji & 9 others
    [1997] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Leave granted under Order 53 rules 1, 3 and 4 and Sections 8(2) and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Article 47 of the Constitution (Fair Administrative Action Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Taiko & another v District Land Registrar, Kajiado & 3 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E015 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5353 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion) dated 8th November 2023, Kajiado. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5353/eng@2024-07-11

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