Okondo & 10 others v Kiok & 2 others; Saidimo (Interested Party) [2024] KEELC 5901 (KLR)

Okondo & 10 others v Kiok & 2 others; Saidimo (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 74 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 5901 (KLR) (18 September 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5901 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado

Environment & Land Case 74 of 2019

MN Gicheru, J

September 18, 2024

Between

Gabriel Onsongo Okondo

1st Plaintiff

Elizabeth Kemunto Ongaki

2nd Plaintiff

Amos Lemangen Ole Kaitei

3rd Plaintiff

Vera Odera Ogembo

4th Plaintiff

David L.C. Mwaniki

5th Plaintiff

Lilian Wanjiku Muchemi

6th Plaintiff

Beatrice Wanjira Kamau

7th Plaintiff

Hudson Lodenyo

8th Plaintiff

Joseph Menge

9th Plaintiff

Lilian Njeri Thuku

10th Plaintiff

John Gichuha Thumbi

11th Plaintiff

and

Sangiri Ole Kiok

1st Defendant

Land Registrar, Kajiado North

2nd Defendant

Attorney General

3rd Defendant

and

Kadipo Saidimo

Interested Party

Ruling

1. On 3/11/2022, this court ordered that the Land Registrar revisits the suit parcels, that is to say, Kajiado/Looldariak/123 and 876 and determines the boundary between them.

2. On 19/10/2023, the Land Registrar Kajiado West filed a report dated 11/9/2023 whose conclusion reads as follows.“The boundary mark shown by the plaintiff is clearly the right beacon in the circumstances, especially because it maintains the map and would not alter the registered areas extensively”.

3. On 30/5/2023, the 1st defendant filed a notice of motion dated 24/4/2023 seeking a review of the order dated 3/11/2022. The motion which was based on three grounds and was supported by an affidavit by the 1st defendant was followed by another one dated 19/6/2023 seeking a stay of boundary determination exercise. The motions were opposed by the plaintiffs and the interested party who filed grounds of opposition dated 3/10/2023 and 14/9/2023 respectively.

4. Counsel for the parties were to file and exchange written submissions. I have carefully considered the two pending applications including the grounds, the affidavits and the written submissions. I find as follows. Firstly, as per the ruling dated 3/11/2022, this court has no jurisdiction in this matter by dint of Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act. Such jurisdiction resides in the Land Registrar. Secondly, under regulation 40 (6) of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017 it is provided as follows.Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar made under paragraph (5) may, within 30 days of the date of notification, appeal the decision to the court”.My understanding of Section 18(2) and regulation 40 (6) of the Land Registration Act and the 2017 Regulations is that the only jurisdiction that this court has in boundary disputes over registered land, is appellate and not original.Finally, I direct that the decision of the Land Registrar contained in the report dated 11/9/2023 be implemented in full unless reversed on appeal.It is so ordered.

DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. M.N. GICHERUJUDGE