Kinuthia v District Land Registrar, Kiambu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E003 of 2023) [2023] KEELC 19915 (KLR) (21 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2023] KEELC 19915 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E003 of 2023
JG Kemei, J
September 21, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS ACT NO. 4 OF 2015
Between
Wilson Njuguna Kinuthia
Applicant
and
District Land Registrar, Kiambu
1st Respondent
District Surveyor, Kiambu
2nd Respondent
The Hon Attorney General
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1.The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated the 24/4/2023 under Section 4, 6, 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Rules 40 (8) and 41(2) of the Land Registration General Regulations 2017 and Section 10 of the Public Officers Ethics Act and all enabling provisions of the law seeking the following orders;a.Spentb.That an order of mandatory injunction do issue compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to ascertain and fix the boundaries of title No Ndumberi/Ndumberi/T622 measuring 0.54 acres within 14 days of the order.c.Costs to be provided.
2.The application is supported by the grounds annexed thereto and the supporting affidavit of the Applicant sworn on the 24/4/2023. The Applicant deposed that he is the registered owner of the suit land and that on the November 21, 2020 he sought for the ascertainment and fixing of the boundaries of the suit land from the Director of Survey who on the 4/12/2020 directed him in writing to seek the services of the 1st Respondent. That on the 18/3/2021 he paid for the said ascertainment services with the 1st Respondent and obtained a receipt thereof. That despite fixing the site visit for the 28/10/2021, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have never carried out the exercise.
3.That the Respondents have failed in their statutory duties as set out in the Land Registration Act and urged the Court to compel them to so carry out their duties as set out in the Act.
4.The application is unopposed despite service of the same.
5.Despite directions having been taken to file written submissions, none of the parties complied.
6.That notwithstanding I shall determine the application based on what was placed before me.
7.It is not in dispute that the Applicant is the registered owner of the suit land having been so registered on the 14/11/94. The gist of the Applicant’s case is that the Respondents ascertain and fix the boundaries of the suit land. It is his averment that despite paying for the services the 1st and 2nd Respondents have failed to carry out a statutory duty provided for by the Act.
8.Fixing and ascertainment of boundaries is provided for under Section 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act as follows:-
9.Under Section 4 of Fair Administrative Actions Act every person has a right to administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. It is the view of the Court that the ascertaining and fixing of the boundary is the mandate of the Land Registrar in law. Once a party requests and pays for an administrative service, a Public Officer ought to provide the service in default the reasons for non-compliance must be given. Section 4(2) of Fair Administrative Actions Act states as follows:-
10.Under subsidiary legislation Section 40 and 41 of the Land Registration Act provides a detailed manner in which a request from a land owner ought to be handled by the Land Registrar who has 60 days to act on the request.
11.The provisions are set out as follows;
12.From the above provisions of the law the Court finds that the Applicant is deserving of the orders.
13.I find that the application is unrebutted and I allow it as follows;a.The commendable order in the circumstances of this application is an order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to ascertain and fix the boundaries of the suit land within the next 60 days.b.I make no orders as to costs.
14.Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.J G KEMEIJUDGE