SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

REPUBLIC v DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR NAKURU & 2 OTHERS [2006] KEHC 278 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 278 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
278
Citation
[2006] KEHC 278 (KLR)
Decided
20 December 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMisc Civil AppliPostureApplication for Certiorari and MandamusCoramD. MUSINGA
Holding

The court granted the prayers as sought by the applicant, finding that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction and in excess of his statutory powers.

Facts

The applicant was registered as the lessee of the suit premises on June 3, 1992, and issued a Certificate of Lease on October 28, 1992. The first respondent, District Land Registrar Nakuru, leased the same property to Wariara Njenga and Margaret Njeri on August 30, 2005, without the applicant's consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the first respondent acted without jurisdiction and in excess of his statutory powers.
  2. Whether the applicant's name should be restored in the register and the names of Wariara Njenga and Margaret Njeri should be cancelled.

Reasoning

The court determined that the first respondent's decision was procedurally flawed and in violation of the Registered Land Act.

Outcome

The court granted the applicant's application for certiorari and mandamus.

Orders

  • To remove the decision of the District Land Registrar, Nakuru, into this court for purposes of quashing it.
  • To restore the applicant's name in the register as the proprietor of the suit premises.
  • To cancel the names of Wariara Njenga and Margaret Njeri from the register.

Remedies

  • To restore the applicant's name in the register as the proprietor of the suit premises.
  • To cancel the names of Wariara Njenga and Margaret Njeri from the register.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Registered Land Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Law Reform Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case