Chivatsi v Chief Land Registrar, Kilifi County & another; Vue & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 3 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5670 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Malindi Environment and Land Court dismissed a bid to reverse a land title reversion, ruling the Land Registrar lawfully executed a valid court decree.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the impugned decision was tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
No; the 1st Respondent acted on a verified judgment and decree of the court, and the notice was in execution of those orders
The court applied the Pastoli criteria. The 1st Respondent received a judgment dated 18/9/2015 and decree re-issued 22/8/2022 in ELC 184 of 2013, verified its authenticity with the court's Deputy Registrar, and then rectified the register in line with the decree. The impugned notice was therefore lawful execution of court orders, not an ultra vires or irrational act.
Whether the Applicant was denied a fair hearing under Article 47, 50 and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act
Judicial review could not succeed; the rectification was pursuant to a court order under Section 80 of the Land Registration Act rather than an independent administrative decision
The court held that Section 76(1) of the Land Registration Act on restrictions did not apply; the appropriate provision was Section 80, under which the court may order rectification. Since the register was rectified following a court order and in execution of a decree, the Applicant did not establish procedural unfairness warranting certiorari.
Whether the notice erroneously included Kilifi/Vyambani/359 belonging to the 4th Interested Party
The land in dispute in ELC 184 of 2013 comprised plots 353-357 only, so the notice should be amended in terms of the judgment and decree
The 4th Interested Party, registered owner of Kilifi/Vyambani/359, showed his plot was not subject of ELC 184 of 2013. The court perused the judgment and decree and found the disputed land was Kilifi/Vyambani/92 subdivided into 353, 354, 355, 356 and 357. It found it necessary that the notice be amended accordingly, though the substantive motion was still dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.The substantive judicial review notice of motion dated 27/2/2023 is dismissed with costs to all the respondents and all the interested parties
- 2.Costs to all the respondents and all the interested parties
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; Order 53 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 9 and 10 of the Public Officer Ethics Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chivatsi v Chief Land Registrar, Kilifi County & another; Vue & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 3 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 5670 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 27/2/2023 (leave granted 20/2/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5670/eng@2024-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.