https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4080

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUSIA** **ELC MISC. NO E014 OF 2025** **WILLIAM WANDERA SUMBA ...................................... APPLICANT** **= VERSUS =** **THE LAND REGISTRAR BUSIA ……..………..….… 1ST RESPONDENT** **THE COUNTY SURVEYOR, BUSIA ………………… 2ND RESPONDENT** **THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ……. 3RD RESPONDENT** **R U L I N G** **INTRODUCTION** 1. The application dated 8.11.2025 seeks the following orders: 2. **An order directed to the 1st and 2nd Defendant to conduct a re-survey and re-establish the boundary between Land Title Number SAMIA/LUCHULULO/BUKHULUNGU/1758 and SAMIA/BUDONGO/377.** 3. **An order directed to the 1st Respondent to accompany the 2nd Respondent and oversee the re-survey and re-establishment of the boundary process.** 4. **Costs.** **APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT:** 1. The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant **MS WILLIAM WANDERA SUMBA** which may be summarized as follows: 2. That the Applicant is the legal and registered owner of all that land known as **L.R NO. SAMIA/BUDONGO/377** which adjoins Land Parcel **NO. SAMIA/LUCHULULO/BUKHULUNGU/1758** belonging to the Interested Party. 3. That there has been a boundary dispute between the Applicant and the Interested Party. 4. That a notice of intention to ascertain and fix boundaries between the two respective parcels of Land was served upon Ms Juliana Namukhula Wandera, the wife of the Applicant on 14.5.2024. 5. That on 14.5.2024, all the deliberations and the hearings were done by the 1st Respondent in the absence of the Applicant wherein the Applicant’s land size was ordered reduced without first hearing the Applicant. 6. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents directed those present during the hearing to plant sisal plants and made an order that the sisal plants now constituted the boundary between the Applicant and the Interested Party. 7. That a survey conducted in the year 2017 had concluded that the Applicant’s land was intact. 8. That the summons herein were served upon the Applicant’s wife on 10.5.2024 requiring the Applicant to attend the boundary hearings on 14.5.2024 and it is the Applicant’s contention that that notice was too short. 9. That the Applicant was not allowed to bring his private Surveyor and further, that the decision made by the 1st and 2nd Respondents was tainted with illegality, irregularity and impropriety. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. The only issue that arises for determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought in his application. 2. It is clear that the Respondents have not opposed the applications as none of them has filed any responses to the application by the Applicant. 3. The Applicant does not deny being served with the summons to appear for the hearing of the boundary dispute between him and the Interested Party as he admits that his wife was served on 10.5.2024 and the Applicant was required to appear for the exercise on 15.4.2024. The Applicant has taken the position that the boundary hearings proceeded in his absence and a determination detrimental to him was arrived at. 4. I have perused the proceedings of the boundary dispute dated 14.5.2024 and I do note that the Applicant and his wife who had been served with the summons did not appear during the hearing. I however do note that there were witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant, namely Caroli Lwanga who said that he was representing his father, William Wandera, the Plaintiff herein. Mr Samwel Onyango and Mr Francis Opili also testified on behalf of the Applicant herein who was said to be the Respondent in the proceedings before the Registrar. 5. The Land Registrar ultimately made the finding that the planted sisal fence formed the boundary between the parcels of land subject matter of this ruling. The Registrar further noted in his report that any aggrieved party may appeal to the Environment and Land Court. 6. There is already in existence a decision of the registrar of land in respect of the boundary dispute between the Applicant and the Interested Party. **Regulation 40(5)** and **(6)** of the **Land Registration (General) Regulations No. 278 of 2017** provides as follows: **(5) “The Registrar shall, after giving all persons appearing for the hearing in accordance with the notifications sent under paragraphs**[**(1)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_1)**and**[**(2)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_2)**an opportunity to be heard, make a determination of the dispute and inform the parties accordingly.** **(6) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar made under paragraph**[**(5)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/ln/2017/278/eng%402024-04-25#part_V__sec_40__subsec_5)**may, within thirty days of the date of notification, appeal the decision to the Court.”** 1. The application by the Applicant herein dated 6.11.2025 does not, in my view, amount to the appeal contemplated under **Regulation 40(6)** of the **Land Registration** **(General) Regulations** referred to above and cannot be used to interfere with the findings of the registrar in his report dated 14.5.2024. 2. I do note that the Applicant has not made any specific prayer against the orders made by the registrar in his report and absent an appeal, I do not find any merits in the application dated 6.11.2025 and the same is hereby dismissed. 3. There shall be no orders as to costs. **C. MUGAMBI** **JUDGE** **18TH JUNE 2026** **Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open Court on this 18th day of June 2026.** **C. MUGAMBI** **JUDGE** **18TH JUNE 2026**