Republic v Senior Land Registrar of Titles Mombasa; Langat (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 1A of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4257 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed land registrars cannot revoke title deeds—only courts can—quashing a gazette notice that invalidated a 1995 Malindi land grant.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Judicial review suit instituted by the Ex-Parte Applicant meets the threshold of such a suit and has merit whatsoever
- 2.Whether the parties are entitled to the prerogative reliefs sought
- 3.Who will bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Senior Registrar of Titles acted ultra vires in revoking the Applicant's title by Gazette Notice
The Respondent acted ultra vires; no statute vested power in the Registrar to revoke titles, and revocation is reserved for the court under Section 80 of the Land Registration Act
The court traced the applicable law through the saving provisions of Section 107 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 and Section 23(3)(c) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, holding that the repealed Government Lands Act and Trust Land Act conferred no revocation power on the Registrar. Revocation power under Section 80 of the LRA is vested in the court alone where fraud or mistake is established. The gazetted revocation was therefore irregular, ultra vires and unlawful and was quashed by certiorari.
Whether an order of prohibition should issue
The second prayer was untenable as it duplicated certiorari; the third prayer was declined to avoid vain orders since the property's current status was unascertained
Relying on the Kenya National Examination Council case, the court noted prohibition looks to the future and cannot quash a decision already made. The second prayer merely repeated the certiorari relief and was dismissed. The third prayer sought to restrain future publication, but with no recent official search to show the status of the property or any contemplated development, the court found it prudent to decline the order.
Costs
Costs follow the event; the successful Ex-Parte Applicant was awarded costs
Guided by Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the Rosemary Wairimu Munene authority, the court held that costs follow the event and are meant to compensate the successful party, not penalize the losing one. Since the Applicant's motion was found meritorious, costs were awarded to him.
Legal principles established
#- The Registrar of Titles has no jurisdiction to revoke title to land; revocation power vests in the court under Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012
- The Government Lands Act (Cap 280) and Trust Land Act (Cap 288) did not confer power on the Registrar of Titles to revoke titles
- Under the saving provision, rights acquired under repealed land statutes are preserved under the Land Registration Act, 2012
Court orders
#- 1.An order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the Order made by the Senior Registrar of Titles, Mombasa on 21st May 2010 in Gazette Notice Number 5562 declaring the Title issued to the Applicant for Malindi L.R No. Portion 10595 revoked
- 2.Prayer (b) for an order of Prohibition against revoking, recalling, cancelling and/or impeaching the Applicant's Title declined
- 3.Prayer (c) for an order of Prohibition against dissemination or publication of material inconsistent with the Applicant's registered proprietorship declined
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the Ex-Parte Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26 and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Order of Prohibition prohibiting the Senior Registrar of Titles from revoking, recalling, cancelling and/or impeaching the Applicant's Title
The prayer did not look into the future but was a repetition of the certiorari prayers
Order of Prohibition prohibiting dissemination/publication of material inconsistent with the Applicant's ownership
Court reluctant to grant an order that might be vain, as the current status of the suit property was not ascertained
Costs
The costs of the suit to be awarded to the Ex-Parte Applicant, borne by the Respondent (the judgment states they will be borne by the 1st to 9th Defendants/Respondents, though only one Respondent is on record).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That Judgement be and is hereby partly entered in favour of the Ex – Parte Applicant
An order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the Order made by the Senior Registrar of Titles, Mombasa under the Constitution of Kenya, the Government Lands Act (Cap 280) and the Trust Land Act (Cap 288) of the Laws of Kenya, on the 21st May 2010 in gazette Notice Number 5562, declaring the Title issued to the Applicant for Malindi L.R No. Portion 10595 revoked.
That the costs of the suit to be awarded to the Ex – Parte Applicant.
I emphatically find that the Respondent acted in ultra vires of his powers and did not follow the procedure as laid out in the provision of Section 60 of the Registration of Tiles Act (Cap 281).
Only an order of certiorari can quash a decision already made and an order of certiorari will issue if the decision is made without or in excess of jurisdiction or where the rules of natural justice are not complied with or for such like reasons.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 18th October 2021 to a Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2020 seeking to set aside a dismissal order of 25th September 2017, dates inconsistent with the Chamber Summons of 29th July 2010 and the narrative of a suit filed in 2010
Costs order refers to 1st to 9th Defendants/Respondents although the only Respondent on record is the Senior Registrar of Titles, Mombasa
Contradictory dates for the allotment: the verifying affidavit cites a Letter of Allotment dated 10th March 1995 while earlier averments describe an application dated 6th February 1992 and approval on 27th February 1992
Extraction from the Abdulgani case includes paragraph numbers (15, 37, 38) inconsistent with the quoted passage's numbering in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Senior Land Registrar of Titles Mombasa; Langat (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 1A of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELCJR. 1A OF 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4257/eng@2024-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.