Ndegwa & another v Gichuki (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan courts cannot decide land boundary disputes between neighbours — the Land Registrar must first fix the boundaries before any eviction can happen.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the boundary dispute issue, or was barred by sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
- 2.Whether the Appeal herein is merited
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the trial court over the boundary dispute
The trial court had no jurisdiction because the boundaries were not fixed; section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act barred it from entertaining the dispute before determination by the Land Registrar.
Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act is mandatory: courts shall not entertain boundary disputes over registered land unless the boundaries have been determined under the Act. Under section 19(3), boundaries are deemed fixed only where a plan verified by the survey authority is noted in the register. No such note was availed; the Surveyor's Report was authored without input from the Land Registrar. The trial court erred in holding that section 18(2) was not a complete ouster of its jurisdiction; the matter should have gone first to the Land Registrar.
Whether the appeal is merited
The appeal succeeded partially: the order of eviction and the costs order were set aside, but the order directing demarcation was left intact and was to be enforced by the Land Registrar and County Surveyor within 60 days.
Although the trial court lacked jurisdiction, its final order had directed the Land Registrar and District Surveyor to demarcate and fix the boundaries, effectively returning the matter to the Land Registrar, which cured the jurisdictional defect. However, eviction before demarcation was erroneous. The court therefore set aside the eviction and costs orders but enforced the demarcation order with a 60-day timeline.
Legal principles established
#- Boundary disputes over registered land with unfixed (general) boundaries must first be referred to the Land Registrar under section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act; the court lacks jurisdiction until the Registrar has determined the dispute.
- Boundaries are deemed fixed only where a plan verified by the survey authority is noted in the register under section 19(3) of the Land Registration Act.
- Where a statute prescribes a special procedure for redress, that procedure must be strictly followed.
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-analyse and re-consider the evidence and reach its own independent conclusions.
- Eviction cannot be ordered before demarcation and fixing of boundaries in a boundary dispute.
Court orders
#- 1.Setting aside of the order for eviction of the Appellants before the demarcation and fixing of boundaries had been done
- 2.Setting aside the order that the Appellants do pay costs of the suit before the trial court, substituted with an order that each party bear its own costs both at the trial court and on appeal
- 3.Directing the Muranga County Land Registrar and County Surveyor to enforce order No (a) of the Decree issued by the trial court on 19th April 2023, within 60 days from the date of the judgment
- 4.Directing that the County Land Registrar and County Surveyor carry out survey and demarcation works and fix the disputed boundaries of Land Parcels No. Loc 11/Maragi/3298 & 3300 and LOC 11/Maragi/1938 within 60 days
- 5.Directing the County Land Registrar to file a Report before the Murang'a Chief Magistrate Court and/or the trial court, with parties at liberty to apply thereafter
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Murang'a
- Muranga CMCC No. E030 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 65(b) of the Civil Procedure Act (first appeal on facts and law)
Relief refused
#Setting aside in full of the trial court's judgment and entry of judgment in favour of the Appellants
The trial court's order directing the Land Registrar and District Surveyor to demarcate the boundaries effectively returned the matter to the Land Registrar, and the court would not interfere with it
Any finding on the merits of the Appellants' counterclaim for injunction
The dispute ought to have been referred to the Land Registrar, so the court declined to determine whether the counterclaim was merited
Costs
Each of the parties herein to bear their own costs both for this appeal, and before the trial court.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Each of the parties herein to bear their own costs both for this appeal, and before the trial court. This Appeal succeeds as enumerated above. It is so ordered.
this court directs the Muranga County Land Registrar and County Surveyor, to enforce order No (a) of the Decree issued by the trial court on 19th April 2023, within a period of 60 days, from the date of this Judgement.
this court finds the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, as this was e preserve of the Land Registrar.
Before demarcation and fixing of the boundaries, then it would not be right to order for eviction of the Appellants herein.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Appellants are never stated anywhere in the judgment; they are referred to only as 'the Appellants', and the case title in the Record is incomplete.
The Memorandum of Appeal is dated 24th April 2023, only five days after the trial judgment of 19th April 2023, which is unusually prompt but not impossible; noted for completeness.
The Respondent's successful party costs submission (section 27 Civil Procedure Act; costs follow the event) was contradicted by the court's final order that each party bear its own costs.
The court both held the trial court had no jurisdiction and declined to set aside the demarcation order, treating the order as curing the jurisdictional defect - a tension in the reasoning.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kimani & 3 others v Wangora (Environment and Land Appeal E041 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8202 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8202 (KLR)27 Nov 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndegwa & another v Gichuki (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Muranga ELC Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 24th April 2023, arising from Muranga CMCC No. E030 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1308/eng@2024-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.