Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 22nd May 2023 ( Judicial Review)· [2025] KEELC 190 (KLR)

Ayieko & another v Kajiado Land Registrar & another; Lakiondo (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 190 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 January 2025
LKL. Komingoi
1,382 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered the Land Registrar Kajiado to release a long-delayed boundary dispute ruling within 45 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Ex parte Applicants, purchasers of parcel Kajiado/Kaputiei North/21872 from the Interested Party, who retained the neighbouring parcel 21873, discovered a two-acre discrepancy between the acreage on the ground and on the mutation form when they sought to subdivide and sell their land in 2021. They lodged a boundary dispute with the 1st Respondent, the Land Registrar, who conducted a site visit on 26th July 2022 but never released the findings despite reminders, in breach of Regulation 40(8) of the Land Registration (General) Regulations requiring boundary disputes to be completed within six months. The Applicants moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 22nd May 2023 seeking mandamus to compel finalisation and release of the boundary dispute report, 60 days' leave to apply for certiorari and other remedies if dissatisfied, and an order of inhibition. The Respondents entered appearance but filed no response; the Interested Party did not participate. The court framed two issues: entitlement to mandamus and certiorari, and costs. Applying the Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geofirey Gathenji Njoroge principles, the court held mandamus lies where a statutory duty is unperformed to the detriment of a party with a legal right to its performance, and found the Registrar's unexplained delay inexcusable. Mandamus issued compelling release of the ruling within 45 days. The certiorari/leave prayer was declined as premature - 'putting the cart before the horse' - and the inhibition order was not granted. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment delivered virtually at Kajiado on 30th January 2025 by L. Komingoi, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether mandamus should issue compelling the Land Registrar to release the boundary dispute ruling

Holding

Yes - the Registrar has a statutory duty under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act to determine boundary disputes and failed to release the ruling within the six-month statutory period without explanation, entitling the Applicants to mandamus

Reasoning

The court restated the nature of mandamus as a discretionary remedy requiring a clear legal right to performance of a public or statutory duty, coupled with a written demand and failure to act. The site visit was conducted on 26th July 2022 but findings were never released despite reminders. Regulation 40(8) requires boundary disputes to be completed within six months absent special circumstances, and the 1st Respondent neither responded to the application nor explained the delay. Mandamus therefore issued with a 45-day deadline.

p. 4
02

Whether leave for certiorari should issue in advance of the Registrar's ruling

Holding

No - the prayer was premature because the ruling has not been made and parties must follow laid-down procedures after the decision

Reasoning

The court held that seeking certiorari before the decision exists inverts the process. Once the boundary dispute ruling is given, known procedures exist for approaching the court where a party is dissatisfied. The prayer for 60 days' leave was therefore declined at that juncture.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Mandamus lies to compel a public officer or authority to perform a statutory duty which has been neglected to the detriment of a party with a legal right to its performance
  • A boundary dispute under the Land Registration Act must ordinarily be completed within six months of filing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An Order of Mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to finalize and release its report/ruling on the boundary dispute between the Ex parte Applicants and the Interested Party in respect of Kajiado/Kaputiei North/21872 and Kajiado/Kaputiei North/21873 and any further sub-divisions resulting from Kajiado/Kaputiei North/21873 within forty five (45) days from the date of the judgment
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 20, 22, 23, 40, 159, 162(2)(b), 165(6), 165(7), 123(3)(f)
  • Land Registration ActSections 18(2), 19, 20, 68
  • Land Registration (General) RegulationsRegulation 40(8)
  • Fair Administrative Action ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 53

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenya National Examination Council v Republic Ex Parte Geofirey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others
    [1997] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 20, 22, 23, 40, 162(2)(b), 165(6) and 165(7) of the Constitution; Sections 18(2), 19, 20 and 68 of the Land Registration Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ayieko & another v Kajiado Land Registrar & another; Lakiondo (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 190 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 22nd May 2023 ( Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/190/eng@2025-01-30

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