Republic v Director of Survey & another Ex Parte Seven Island Watamu Limited [2019] KEELC 485 (KLR)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 485
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 485 (KLR)
- Decided
- 5 December 2019
Summary at a glance
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplication for Leave to Commence Proceedings in the Nature of Judicial ReviewCoramJ.O. OLOLA
The Court allows the Ex-parte Applicant's application on condition that it shall cause to be forwarded to the 1st Respondent the requisite mutation documents from the Surveyor within 30 days from today and to pay any fees that may be required for such exercise to the 1st Respondent.
Facts
The Ex-parte Applicant, Seven Island Watamu Limited, is the registered proprietor of a parcel of land known as Kilifi/Jimba/1125. Despite the existence of the land on the ground and the issuance of a title deed, the parcel does not appear on the Registry Index Map No. 12 for the Kilifi/Jimba registration area.
Issues
- Whether the Director of Survey is statutorily mandated to amend the Register to include the Ex-parte Applicant's property.
- Whether the Ex-parte Applicant is entitled to an order of mandamus compelling the Director of Survey to amend the Register to include the Ex-parte Applicant's property.
Reasoning
The Court found that the Director of Survey is the only body mandated in law to carry out such an amendment, and the continued non-existence of the Ex-parte Applicant's property in the Registry Index Map jeopardises the authenticity of its Title Deed and constitutes a fetter on its right to property.
Outcome
The Ex-parte Applicant's application is allowed with conditions.
Orders
- The Ex-parte Applicant shall cause to be forwarded to the 1st Respondent the requisite mutation documents from the Surveyor within 30 days from today.
- The Ex-parte Applicant shall pay any fees that may be required for such exercise to the 1st Respondent.
Remedies
- Compulsory amendment of the Register Index Map to include the Ex-parte Applicant's property.
Authorities cited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…