Kisvi v Katiku & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7363 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner won a trespass case after a survey proved neighbours were using an access road through her land without permission.
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 access road used by the Defendants passes through the Plaintiff's land parcel Makueni/Kako/2600
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff proved her claim on a balance of probabilities
- 3.Whether the boundary between Makueni/Kako/2600 and Makueni/Kako/217 should be ascertained by fresh survey
Key legal issues
#Trespass by use of an access road across the Plaintiff's registered land
The court found the access road used by the Defendants lies on the Plaintiff's land and that the Defendants are trespassing
The Plaintiff produced a survey report dated 29th May 2024 from a Makueni County surveyor confirming that the access road passes through her parcel and does not exist on the Registry Index Map. The Defendants, though served, did not enter appearance or file a defence, so the evidence was uncontroverted. On that unchallenged evidence the court was satisfied the claim was proved on a balance of probabilities.
Determination of the boundary between Makueni/Kako/2600 and Makueni/Kako/217
The court allowed a fresh survey to ascertain the exact boundary between the two parcels
The Plaintiff sought a fresh survey because the access road did not exist on the Registry Index Map and the Defendants resisted efforts to position it correctly on the ground. The survey report confirmed the encroachment, and the court granted prayers 1 to 4 in full, including the survey.
Legal principles established
#- An uncontroverted claim at formal proof need only be proved on a balance of probabilities, supported by cogent documentary evidence
Court orders
#- 1.Closure of the illegal access road passing through the Plaintiff's land parcel Makueni/Kako/2600
- 2.A fresh survey to be conducted to ascertain the exact boundary between land parcel Makueni/Kako/2600 and 217
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
- 4.Any other just relief deemed fit to grant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land disputes (Environment and Land Court); no specific provision cited in judgment
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.
I find that the Plaintifi has proved her case on a balance of probabilities. I allow the Plaintifi's claim in terms of prayer 1, 2, 3 and 4.
From the survey report produced, the access road which is being used by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants is on her land.
The Defendants who were duly served neither entered appearance nor filed defence. The case therefore proceeded by way of formal proof.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment excerpt
The judgment does not state the court station expressly; only land parcels in Makueni and a Makueni County surveyor are mentioned
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisvi v Katiku & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7363 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7363/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.