Nareiyo Koriata v District Land Registrar, Narok North & 2 others [2017] KEELC 400 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a landowner's bid to overturn a land registrar's boundary rectification, because she had originally agreed to it, and ordered an on-site boundary fixing instead.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the directive of 2nd November 2011 was ultra vires
Not ultra vires; the Respondent acted within his statutory powers to rectify the register with the parties' consent
The Applicant confirmed the Respondent has powers to rectify anomalies in the register under section 142 of the Registered Land Act Cap 300 (now repealed) and did not dispute that the parties presented themselves voluntarily to the registrar for rectification. The letter of 2nd November 2011 was addressed to all those who had consented to the rectification, so the directive did not exceed the Respondent's powers.
Whether the Applicant was accorded a hearing
Court examined the pleadings on this issue but the Applicant had herself participated in the consented rectification process
The Applicant does not dispute that the parties presented themselves to the registrar voluntarily to have the register rectified, and only came to court after failing to have their way. This undercut the claim that the directive was issued without notice or hearing.
Legal principles established
#- A registrar may rectify anomalies in the register pursuant to section 142 of the Registered Land Act Cap 300 where the affected parties consented to the rectification
- Disputes relating to boundaries should be resolved by the registrar fixing the boundary under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Act upon a site visit
Court orders
#- 1.Application for judicial review dismissed as unmerited
- 2.2nd Respondent and the registrar directed to visit the suit land and fix the boundary between the parties under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act and file a report in court within 60 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under the law relating to orders of certiorari and prohibition (leave granted to institute judicial review proceedings)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nareiyo Koriata v District Land Registrar, Narok North & 2 others [2017] KEELC 400 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 23rd November, 2011), Narok. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/400/eng@2017-12-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.