Lichoti (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Enock Lichoti Murumwa - Deceased) v Lucinde & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3245 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land court cannot decide general boundary disputes directly—you must first take your case to the Land Registrar before any judge will hear it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute
The suit is a general boundary dispute that must first be determined by the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act and Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations; the court lacks original jurisdiction and the suit is struck out
The plaintiff's complaint concerned the location of boundaries between two registered parcels separated by an access road. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act bars the court from entertaining boundary disputes unless the boundaries have been determined under that section. Regulation 40 provides the procedure before the Registrar, with a right of appeal to the court within thirty days. No decision of the Land Registrar was placed before the court, and section 86 was inapplicable.
Whether section 86 of the Land Registration Act confers jurisdiction
Section 86 was misplaced because the suit does not challenge any decision of the Land Registrar and seeks no relief envisaged under that section
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit challenged a decision of the Land Registrar. The court held the dispute was in substance a boundary dispute falling under section 18, not section 86, and that no decision of the Registrar had been placed before the court for review. The form of the pleading could not confer jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court has no original jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes concerning general boundaries; such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar, and the court's jurisdiction is invoked only on appeal from the Registrar's decision
- Jurisdiction flows from the constitution or statute and a court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction it does not have
Court orders
#- 1.This suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution as read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Cancellation of the survey process conducted on 20th July 2024, resurvey to ascertain the five metre access road, and permanent injunction restraining trespass
The court lacks original jurisdiction over general boundary disputes, which must first be determined by the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs, since the jurisdictional issue was raised by the court suo motu and not by the defendants
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.
In the premises, this suit is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
That being the case, I order that each party shall bear its own costs.
Therefore, this court’s jurisdiction can only be invoked where the parties are dissatisfied with the Land Registrar’s decision as the court has no original jurisdiction in regard to boundary disputes relating to general boundaries.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step.
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery date appears as 20th May 2026 in the closing while submissions on record are dated June 2025 and the ruling context is 2025; the year 2026 may be an error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lichoti (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Enock Lichoti Murumwa - Deceased) v Lucinde & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3245/eng@2026-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.