Inziani v Anubi (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8663 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan courts cannot decide land boundary disputes; you must first take the matter to the Land Registrar, or your case risks being thrown out entirely.
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 entertain the miscellaneous application and make the orders it made, given sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the trial court over a boundary dispute
The trial court lacked jurisdiction because the boundary between the parcels had never been fixed by the Land Registrar; the dispute fell within sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act.
It was common ground and the law that boundary disputes vest in the Land Registrar under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act. On re-examining the evidence, the court found no evidence that the boundary between the parcels had been fixed; the surveyor's report showed boundary confirmation was suspended due to hostility. The application invited the court to exercise powers the law had divested from it, so the trial court erred in entertaining the claim.
Whether the court could order police security for removal of the pit latrine before boundary determination
No; without a fixed boundary it was unknown on whose land the pit latrine stood and there was no order for eviction or demolition.
The court accepted that it may direct police to provide security for a lawful exercise, but here part of the intended action was removal of a pit latrine erected by the respondent. Since the boundary had not been determined, it could not be known whether the latrine was on the applicant's land, the respondent's land, or the road of access. There was no eviction or demolition order, so the application sought to invoke powers the court did not have.
Order directing the Land Registrar to file a report
The trial court erred in directing the Land Registrar to file a report when the Registrar was not a party and the parties had not referred the matter to the Registrar.
The ruling, apart from granting the prayers, directed the Land Registrar to file a report in court. However, the Land Registrar was not a party to the suit, and the parties themselves had not referred the dispute to the Land Registrar as the law requires. This made the order improper and formed part of the trial court's error in entertaining and deciding the matter.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction over boundary disputes is vested in the Land Registrar under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, and courts are divested of jurisdiction until the boundary is fixed by the Land Registrar.
- The Land Registrar may work with a surveyor, but the determination and report on a boundary dispute must be that of the Land Registrar.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Ruling of the trial court dated 23rd January 2025 set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application dated 22nd December 2021
- 3.Each party to bear own costs of the Misc. application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Vihiga Senior Principal Magistrate's Court
- SPMC Misc. Appl. No. 25 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act; appeal from ruling of 23rd January 2025 in Misc. Appl. No. 25 of 2021
Relief refused
#Appellant's sought costs of the appeal were not awarded to any party
Parties are neighbours who may need to refer the matter to the Land Registrar; court found it in the interest of justice that each party bear own costs
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the appeal; and each party to bear own costs of the Misc. application in 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.
It is also the law under s. 18(2) of the same Act that courts are divested of jurisdiction in such disputes until the boundary dispute is heard and the boundary fixed by the Land Registrar.
There was no court order for eviction or demolition. The application invited the court to exercise its powers where the law had divested the court of such powers.
The ruling of the trial court dated 23rd January 2025 is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application dated 22nd December 2021 with an order that each party bear own costs of the Misc. application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Inziani v Anubi (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8663 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Vihiga SPMC MISC APPL NO. 25 of 2021 (appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8663/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.