Moilo (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Roriki - Kayanga alias Toriki - ole Kayianka (Deceased)) v Kajiado Central District Land Registrar & another (Environment and Land Appeal E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 985 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado joined an heir to a land boundary appeal but refused to overturn a lower court's orders, citing limited appellate jurisdiction.
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 2nd Intended Respondent/Applicant has adequately demonstrated why he should be included in this appeal
- 2.Whether the court can set aside the order issued in MCCRMISC/E303/2024
Key legal issues
#Joinder of an interested party in a pending appeal
The intended 2nd Respondent demonstrated a proximate personal interest in the boundary dispute resolved by the Land Registrar and was properly joined as the 2nd Respondent.
Relying on Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Muruatetu elements for joinder of an interested party and the Court of Appeal decision in David Kiptugen, the court found that the Applicant, as son and legal representative of the deceased registered proprietor of Kajiado/Meto/3 whose estate is affected by the challenged Registrar's ruling, has a clear stake. The application was unchallenged and the prior litigation history showed the dispute directly concerns him.
Whether this court can set aside the ex parte injunctive orders issued in MCCRMISC/E303/2024
The court cannot; although the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction, this court's appellate jurisdiction is confined to the appeal before it.
The court agreed that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction over boundary disputes already determined by the Land Registrar under the Land Registration Act. However, as an appellate court its jurisdiction is limited by section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42, and the orders in MCCRMISC/E303/2024 are not the subject of this appeal, so their merits cannot be considered.
Legal principles established
#- Appellate jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by statute; a court cannot exceed the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or legislation.
- A person whose presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate on all questions in the suit may be joined at any stage under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Respondent/Applicant is hereby joined as the 2nd Respondent in this appeal.
- 2.The costs of the application shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Kajiado Central District Land Registrar (administrative decision)
- Ruling dated 26th April, 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules (appellate jurisdiction over the Land Registrar's decision)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the ex parte orders issued by Hon. Jane Kamau on 5th December, 2024 in Kajiado MCCRMISC No. E303 of 2024
This court, sitting as an appellate court, lacks jurisdiction to deal with any matter other than the appeal before it; the subordinate court's orders are not the subject of this appeal.
Order summoning the Appellant to show cause why he filed two similar suits relating to the same subject matter
The court found no legal basis for the prayer.
Costs of the application borne by the Appellant
Costs were instead ordered to be in the cause.
Costs
The costs of the application shall be in the cause
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.
The 2nd Respondent/Applicant is hereby joined as the 2nd Respondent in this appeal.
The costs of the application shall be in the cause
Appellate jurisdiction is limited jurisdiction; so limited by the statute.
there is no basis of proceeding to consider the merit and demerits of the decision issued in MCCRMISC/E303/2024 because it is not the subject of this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the dismissal of Machakos Misc. Civil Application No. 84 of 2010 on two inconsistent dates.
The judgment inconsistently refers to the suit parcel, variously Kajiado/Meto/3 and Kajiado/Meto/14.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moilo (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Roriki - Kayanga alias Toriki - ole Kayianka (Deceased)) v Kajiado Central District Land Registrar & another (Environment and Land Appeal E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 985 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Appeal (Kajiado); application dated 9th December, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/985/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.