https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1449

Ledero Group Ranch v Nauneri Group Ranch (Civil Appeal E050 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1449 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1449 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nakuru Civil Appeal E050 of 2021 JM Mativo, MB Kairaria & AI Hassan, JJA July 17, 2026 Between Ledero Group Ranch Appellant and Nauneri Group Ranch Respondent (Being an appeal against the judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nyahururu (Y. M. Angima, J.) dated 15th March 2021 in ELC Appeal No. 19 of 2019 Environment and Land Appeal 19 of 2019 ) Judgment 1.At the core of this protracted litigation is a long-standing highly contested boundary dispute between two ranches, namely, Ledero Group Ranch (the appellant) and Nauneri Group Ranch (the respondent). The land is located in Poro Location, within Samburu County. In a nutshell, the appellant claimed a river was the boundary, while the respondent maintained that the boundary was the Maralal- Kisima road. The significance of the boundary was that if the road was to be the boundary then the respondent would have a bigger parcel of land. Conversely, if the river were to be the rightful boundary then the appellant's land would be bigger. 2.The genesis of the dispute was an alleged exclusion or omission of the disputed parcel of land from the Ledero section. Members of the Ledero Group Ranch contended that the contested portion had been taken by the Nauneri Group Ranch. Notably, there were two conflicting notices declaring the area an adjudication section, but this declaration did not match the ground definitions. Nauneri was incorporated in 1973 (Poror Adjudication Section), while Ledero’s declaration was in 1982 (Kirisia Section). Due to the different declaration dates and ground definitions, an overlap was created between the two sections. 3.As alluded to above, the respondent maintained that the Maralal Kisima Road (the main road) was the permanent boundary since 1973, and, that, the appellants members have never historically crossed to their side. On the other hand, the appellant argued that their boundary surpasses the Mararal Kisima Road, therefore, using the road as a boundary causes an encroachment on their land. 4.The record shows that the appellant reported the boundary dispute to the District Land Registrar in 2015 or thereabouts after which the parties were summoned for a hearing before the District Land Registrar on 28th July 2015. However, a report dated 15th September 2015 shows that the District Land Registrar was unable to resolve the dispute. Instead, he advised the parties to seek court intervention. As the learned Judge observed in the judgment dated 15th March 2021, the subject of this appeal, there is nothing to show that this report was communicated to the parties or published. Nevertheless, on 14th November 2019, C.M. Ayienda, the Land Registrar delivered a ruling in which he determined that the Maralal- Kisima road remains the boundary. In his definitive finding, Mr. Ayienda stated:“The decision is more of a land claim than a boundary dispute. The dispute arose as a consequence of misrepresentation of (error) of declaration notices. An overlap was created over Naumeri Group Ranch which was first declared before Ledero Group Ranch. In essence the earlier declaration should take precedence and the maps amended accordingly. The owner of parcel No. (2) two in Ledero Section to get his share from Ledero Group Ranch. The boundary remains the Maralal Kisima Road separating the two ranches.” (Emphasis added) 5.The consequence of the above decision was that the appellant lost some portion of land whereas by the same margin the respondent gained some land. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant appealed to the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu (the ELC) in Appeal No. 19 of 2019 faulting the Land Registrar for: (a) finding that an overlap was created on Nauneri Group Ranch Land; (b) failing to appreciate that there will be an encroachment over its parcel of land if the Maralal/ Kisima road is retained as the boundary; (c) finding that the boundary between the two group ranches is the Maralal/ Kisima Road; (d) acting impartially and or being influenced by extraneous matters; (e) disregarding the appellant’s evidence. 6.The appellant prayed that: (a) its appeal be allowed; (b) the ruling dated 14th November, 2019 and all consequential orders be set aside and the dispute be determined afresh and or the correct boundary reflecting the correct acreage of each group ranch be determined and maintained; (c) the boundary on the ground be marked to conform to the maps; (d) the costs of the appeal be granted to the appellant. 7.In the impugned judgment delivered on 15th March 2021, Angima, J. decreed that: (a) the office of the Land Registrar is a continuous entity; therefore, it was not illegal for the Land Registrar to rely on evidence and proceedings previously recorded; (b) the appellant was afforded an opportunity to be heard, as their witnesses were previously heard; (c) the Land Registrar acted within his mandate under the Land Registration Act to determine boundary disputes. Accordingly, the learned judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal with costs to the respondent. 8.In his quest for justice, the appellant is now before this Court seeking to overturn the above decision. In summation, the appellant contends that the learned judge failed to: (a) appreciate the sanctity of the right to be heard and the relevant provisions relating thereto to wit; Article 47 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Land Registration Act and Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act; (b) that "justice must not only be done but be seen to be done;" and, (c) that the parties had legitimate expectation that the powers bestowed unto the Land Registrar must be exercised fairly. 9.The appellant prays that this appeal be allowed, the judgment of the ELC be set aside and be substituted with an order remitting the dispute to the Land Registrar to be determined afresh in accordance with the law, and the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the ELC Court be awarded to the appellant. 10.In support of the appeal, the appellant’s counsel Mr. Karanja adopted his written submissions dated 1st March 2023 which he highlighted orally. He faulted the learned judge for failing to appreciate that the Land Registrar violated the appellant’s right to a fair hearing by failing to conduct his own inquiries. Instead, the Land Registrar relied solely on witness statements and a 2015 report from a different Land Registrar, thus, denying the parties an opportunity to be heard. He cited the Supreme Court decision in John Florence Maritime Limited & Ano. vs. Cabinet Secretary, Transport & Infrastructure & 3 Others [2021] KESC 39 and Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 Others vs. Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 Others [2014] eKLR to underscore the centrality of a fair hearing. He maintained that the appellant was not invited for a hearing either before the Land Registrar or the ELC Court. Instead, both the Land Registrar and the ELC relied on findings that had already been made by a different Land Registrar. Also, in 2019, the Land Registrar relied on witness statements made in 2015 to make his determination and failed to hear the parties which was a violation of the rules of natural justice. 11.Counsel cited the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act to urge that the learned judge erred in clothing the Land Registrar with a non-existent jurisdiction. It was his submission that the mandate of the Land Registrar was to determine the boundaries, therefore, his assessment that the boundaries should be moved was in excess of his jurisdiction. Mr. Karanja recalled the sentiments expressed by the Land Registrar that “this case is more than a boundary dispute,” effectively acknowledging that the determination was beyond his jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that the District Land Registrar has no powers to cancel a title or allocate land. 12.Also, Mr. Karanja faulted the learned judge for failing to appreciate that the conclusion arrived at by the Land Registrar was illogical. It was his submission that after the 1st Land Registrar determined the dispute, he became functus officio. Counsel emphasized that in the determination dated 15th September 2015, the Land Registrar was clear that before him was a land dispute and advised the parties to seek court intervention. Therefore, his successor in office could not lawfully assume jurisdiction. However, two years later, another Land Registrar picked the proceedings and made another determination. 13.Also, Mr. Karanja argued that the Land Registrar did not fix or ascertain the boundary as provided under Section 19 of the Land Registration Act. Instead, he altered the boundary and ordered the appellant to surrender about 200 acres of their land to the respondents. Consequently, the appellant’s title is supposed to be cancelled. He maintained that central to this dispute was not a boundary redetermination but a land dispute. 14.The respondent’s counsel Mr. Gikunju adopted his written submissions dated 17th April 2023 basically asserting that the appellant’s representatives were heard and their testimonies recorded during the initial proceedings. Therefore, it was not unlawful for the Land Registrar upon taking over from his predecessor to conclude the dispute based on evidence recorded by his precursor. In support of this assertion, counsel cited Order 18 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 15.He maintained that the Land Registrar acted within his powers under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act, 2012 and Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017. It was also his submission that the boundary was not previously fixed, necessitating the Registrar’s intervention. 16.He contended that the appellant's reliance on a 2015 decision is misplaced, because that document was never formally pronounced. Therefore, the only valid decision was the one rendered by C.M. Ayienda on 14th November 2019. Lastly, regarding the status quo, Mr. Gikunju stated that the respondent has since been dissolved and that the land has since been sub-divided and some people have been issued with titles. 17.The germane issue in this appeal is whether C.M. Ayienda, Land Registrar lawfully assumed jurisdiction by taking over the boundary determination proceedings recorded by his predecessor and rendering a final decision without visiting the site to undertake a site inspection and hear the parties before rendering his decision. The starting point in addressing this critical issue is to underscore that a Land Registrar exercises quasi-judicial power when resolving boundary disputes.Therefore, he/she is bound by the core principles of administrative justice and procedural fairness. The issue at hand narrows to whether a successor to a quasi-judicial officer can lawfully pass a final order based on hearings conducted by a predecessor without offering a fresh hearing to the parties and, where necessary, undertake a site inspection. 18.Proceeding to resolve a boundary dispute without hearing the parties or visiting the site violates the foundational principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The fundamental rule of natural justice dictates that the specific officer who listens to the witnesses, evaluates oral evidence, and manages the hearing must be the one who makes the final decision. The Core Principle here is "he who hears must Decide." The foundational jurisprudence on this issue was established by the Supreme Court of India in its landmark ruling regarding institutional and quasi-judicial decision-making in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) [1959 AIR 308]. In this decision, the Supreme Court India famously ruled that "if one person hears and another decides, then a personal hearing becomes an empty formality." The Court held that a successor officer cannot simply take over a file, look at the records of a previous hearing and pass an order. If a predecessor is transferred or replaced before delivering the final order, the successor must hear the parties afresh. 19.Indian courts have routinely set aside boundary and revenue orders where a successor authority failed to grant a de novo hearing. In V.V. Iyer vs. Jasjit Singh (AIR 1973 SC 1170)/ [1965], the Supreme Court of India re-emphasized that when a quasi-judicial matter changes hands, the new officer cannot rely on the arguments or notes recorded by the previous officer. Doing so constitutes a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting order null and void. 20.Also, in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Ministry of Commerce & Industry [2011] 2 SCC 258, the Supreme Court of India held that if the officer who held the hearing is replaced, the successor must provide a minimal personal hearing to the affected parties. The court ruled that it is immaterial whether the statute explicitly commands a fresh hearing; the requirement is deeply embedded in the concept of fairness. 21.Because a boundary dispute is entirely dependent on physical coordinates, possession, and topographical facts, courts treat a final boundary determination without a site inspection, or reliance on a stale site visit report as an error of law. Therefore, a new officer cannot adequately determine the facts purely from a "cold record" or a predecessor's incomplete notes. A Land Registrar cannot determine actual possession and boundaries purely through an office desk review. The decision- maker must base their findings on actual, verified local investigation. (See State of H.P. vs. Maharani Deven Kumari (AIR 2004 HP 3). 22.Under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, the Land Registrar has primary and original jurisdiction to settle boundaries. However, we must underscore that when a boundary or demarcation is contested, the quasi-judicial officer must issue notices to the affected parties, and visit the site to conduct a physical survey in the presence of both parties. Passing an order without a site visit, when the boundary is actively disputed, represents a failure to exercise jurisdiction properly. Courts will swiftly invalidate or quash any determination if the Registrar makes a decision sitting in an office without visiting the ground or fails to afford both sides a fair hearing. In Francis Runyah Lewa (Suing as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of Frederick Katana Mwangome (Deceased)) vs. Board of Management Katikirieni Primary School (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2023) [2024] KEELC, the ELC underscored that, the Land Registrar cannot unilaterally issue a boundary report without actively involving all stakeholders on-site. This was an appeal challenging a boundary/land decision made by the Land Registration Officer for Kilifi County. The court addressed the Land Registrar's obligation to offer all affected parties a proper legal hearing and notice under the Land Registration Act before altering land records. 23.In Kairu vs. Mutunga [2023] KEELC 21723 (KLR), the ELC detailed how the administrative resolution pathway interacts with constitutional fair hearing rights. The court observed that under the LRA, a boundary dispute requires the Land Registrar to actually visit the suit land. It affirmed that the rules of natural justice dictate that anyone whose property rights stand to be bound or affected by a boundary alteration must be present, heard, and allowed to contest the physical placement of beacons. 24.In our view, the above decisions represent the correct interpretation of the law. We can only add that a reading of the above decisions show that the courts base their judgments on a combined reading of Article 50 (1) of the Constitution, (right to a fair hearing) and Rule 40 & 41 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations. The following core principles are discernible in the decisions.(a)The duty to notify and invite: The Land Registrar must issue formal boundary dispute summons to the parties to the dispute and all adjacent neighbors.(b)The duty to conduct a site visit: Boundaries cannot be "guessed" from office registries. The Land Registrar, accompanied by a Government Surveyor under the Survey Act (Cap 299) must physically go to the land to re-establish lines using original Registry Index Maps (RIMs) or mutation forms.(c)The right to be heard (Audi Alteram Partem):During the site visit, the Registrar is legally obligated to take evidence from both parties and local village elders to reconcile the paperwork with historical occupation. If a Land Registrar fails to conduct a site visit or excludes one party, then the ensuing decision is susceptible to be quashed by the court on account of legal and procedural impropriety. 25.We have said enough to demonstrate that the ruling delivered on 14th November 2019 by C.M. Ayienda, the Land Registrar, determining that the Maralal-Kisima road remains the boundary between the Ledero Group Ranch and Nauneri Group Ranch is legally and procedurally infirm. We also wish to clarify that Order 18 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 invoked by the respondent’s counsel is inapplicable in boundary dispute proceedings, a sui generis procedure which, unlike court proceedings, requires a site visit, inspection and determination of the exact boundaries which cannot be done by a person sitting in an office or reading proceedings recorded by his predecessor. Consequently, the ELC fell into a grave error by failing to appreciate the uniqueness of the proceedings before it and the legal and procedural flaws highlighted earlier. On this ground alone, this appeal succeeds. 26.The upshot is that this appeal is merited. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment rendered by Angima, J. on 15th March, 2021 in Nyahururu, ELC Appeal No. 19 of 2019, Ledero Group Ranch vs. Nauneri Group Ranch and substitute it with the following orders:a.The appellant’s appeal before the ELC is hereby allowed.b.The Registrar's decision dated 14th November, 2019 and all consequential orders be and are hereby set aside.c.That the Land Registrar be and is hereby ordered to revisit the dispute in strict compliance with Sections 14 and 87 of the Land Registration Act.d.The respondent shall pay the appellant costs of this appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.J. MATIVO................................ JUDGE OF APPEALMURUNGI B. KAIRARIA................................ JUDGE OF APPEALAHMED ISSACK................................ JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed.DEPUTY REGISTRAR.