Republic & another v Land Registrar, Kajiado North & another; Onsomu & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2017) [2023] KEELC 21144 (KLR) (30 October 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21144 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 30 OF 2017 MN GICHERU, J OCTOBER 30, 2023 IN THE MATTER FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW BY GATHECHA NG’ANG’A KIOI AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO. NGONG/NGONG/3524 IN KAJIADO AND THE DECISION MADE BY THE LAND REGISTRAR, KAJIADO NORTH CONCERNING THE SAID PARCEL ON UNKNOWN DATE BUT AFTER 7 TH FEBRUARY 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF VARIOUS MAPS BY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY REGARDING THE SAID PARCEL OF LAND BETWEEN REPUBLIC ................................................................................................. APPLICANT AND GATHECHA NG’ANG’A KIOI ........................................... EX PARTE APPLICANT AND THE LAND REGISTRAR, KAJIADO NORTH ......................... 1ST RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY ................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT AND IRENE M. ONSOMU ............................................................... INTERESTED PARTY PHILIP KIVUVA NZIOKA ..................................................... INTERESTED PARTY https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21144/eng@2023-10-30 1
page 1 of 2
RULING 1. This ruling is on the way forward following the ruling of the Land Registrar’s report dated September 30, 2020. The report by the Land Registrar, Kajiado North was as a result of an order of this court dated November 14, 2019. On February 7, 2023, it was ordered after the consent of all the parties that counsel for the parties le submissions on the way forward. On record, I have submissions led by Mr Moriasi for the rst interested party and those by Mr Mugu for the applicant. Mr Mathuva for the second interested party did not le any submissions. 2. In his Submissions dated 1May 5, 2023, Mr Moriasi, learned counsel for the rst interested party has raised the issue namely, that this court is functus officio and it should down its tools and allow the parties to commence the process of the dispute from the registrar’s decision. The court may then deal with the matter as an appeal or a judicial review. 3. On the other hand, Mr Mugu learned counsel for the applicant urges that this court goes ahead to accept the report as its decision because the rst interested party did not appeal against the judgment dated November 14, 2019. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions by learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the entire record which dates back to July 8, 1971. I nd that it would not be fair or just to down my tools when this old dispute has nally been resolved. The order of November 14, 2019 requesting for a report of the Land Registrar was not made in vain. It was made because the previous exercise had been tainted with procedural irregularity. The report by the Land Registrar is the culmination of this 52 year old dispute. It is the endgame and it is backed by the judgment dated November 14, 2019. Consequently, the Land Registrar’s report dated September 30, 2020 is accepted and adopted by this court as the way forward. It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. M.N. GICHERU JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21144/eng@2023-10-30 2
page 2 of 2