Pasha v Kula & 3 others; Tiger Farm (Isenya) Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 401 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 5755 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court ordered land boundaries restored to their 1967 positions, ruling that land sold during a known boundary dispute offers buyers no protection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi
The plaintiff, as registered owner of parcel 6687 carved out of the original parcel 20 and bordering the disputed area, had locus standi.
The defendants argued the plaintiff was not an administrator of his late father's estate and produced no title. The court held the plaintiff sued to pursue his own registered interest in parcel 6687, allocated to him by his father before demise, so locus standi could not arise as an issue.
Rectification of boundaries
The court ordered rectification of the register to conform with the 1967 demarcation, finding the defendants' parcels encroached on the plaintiff's parcel.
The Assistant Surveyor admitted the Werunga report showed defendants' parcels had encroached on the plaintiff's parcel. The 1990 Land Registrar's determination had been set aside by Githinji J in HCCC 5368 of 1990. Beacons fixed on 8th November 2017 pursuant to a court order were held to stand; the 1st Defendant sold portions while aware of the pending dispute.
Entitlement to prayers
The plaintiff proved his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to rectification, possession and a permanent injunction against the Defendants.
On the totality of the evidence, including the survey evidence and the fact that the 1990 Registrar's report had been set aside, the court found the claim proved against the Defendants. The Interested Parties, though potentially unaware of the dispute, were left to pursue the sellers; relief did not disturb their interests directly.
Legal principles established
#- A registered owner of land affected by a boundary dispute has locus standi to sue in respect of that land
- A determination of a Land Registrar set aside by the High Court cannot stand, and beacons fixed pursuant to a court order ought to stand
- Bona fide purchasers from a vendor who sold while aware of a pending boundary dispute must seek recourse from the seller
Court orders
#- 1.The Land Registrar to rectify the land register by cancelling or amending any registration of new boundaries concerning Kajiado/Kaputiei North/13960 (or original Kajiado/Kaputiei North/20) arising from creation of parcels 917, 721 and 705 from Embolioi Group Ranch, to conform with the position prevailing at the demarcation of 1967, within sixty (60) days from the date of the judgment
- 2.The Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the parts of land Kajiado/Kaputiei North/13960 now wrongfully occupied by the Defendants
- 3.A permanent injunction issued restraining the Defendants from entering and utilizing the said portions
- 4.The Plaintiff shall have costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over a land boundary dispute (suit transferred from the High Court at Nairobi); rectification of the register under the Land Registration Act invoked by the parties
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pasha v Kula & 3 others; Tiger Farm (Isenya) Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 401 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 5755 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment text (transferred from High Court at Nairobi; predecessor suit HCCC No. 5368 of 1990). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5755/eng@2024-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.