[2025] KEELC 5438 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5438 (KLR)

The court found that the dispute between the parties was essentially a boundary dispute between two registered parcels of land. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act expressly prohibits courts from entertaining boundary disputes unless the boundaries have first been determined by the Land Registrar. The trial magistrate therefore lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter, and the respondents should have sought resolution from the Land Registrar before approaching the court. The court also noted anomalies in the appellant's claim regarding the size of the land purchased and the area reflected in the title deed, which were unexplained. As both parties failed to follow the proper...

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5438 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ezra Karanja Kiiru; Respondent: John Thuo Gitau; Respondent: Mary Wangui Mwangi; Respondent: Elizabeth Njeri Wanja
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Muranga
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E053 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
MN Gicheru
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Land Registration, Adverse Possession, Overriding Interests
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Land Registration Adverse Possession Overriding Interests

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ezra Karanja Kiiru

Appellant

John Thuo Gitau

Respondent

Mary Wangui Mwangi

Respondent

Elizabeth Njeri Wanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in entertaining a boundary dispute before determination by the Land Registrar.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had acquired rights by adverse possession over the disputed portion of land.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were entitled to an order of eviction against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute between the parties was essentially a boundary dispute between two registered parcels of land. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act expressly prohibits courts from entertaining boundary disputes unless the boundaries have first been determined by the Land Registrar. The trial magistrate therefore lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter, and the respondents should have sought resolution from the Land Registrar before approaching the court. The court also noted anomalies in the appellant's claim regarding the size of the land purchased and the area reflected in the title deed, which were unexplained. As both parties failed to follow the proper...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.