Mwanzi & another (Both trading as "Kayole Hekima Academy Educational Centre") v Mwangi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 126 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 3359 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 site visit report filed by the Hon. Deputy Registrar should be declared inadmissible, expunged from the record and a fresh site visit conducted with the assistance of a licensed surveyor
Key legal issues
#Whether the site visit report should be expunged for want of a licensed surveyor and alleged bias
The application fails; the report is admissible. All parties were represented and granted audience, no protest was made at the site visit, and the report reflects ordinary observation rather than scientific or technical findings.
The court traced its power to direct a locus visit to Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and adopted the guidelines in Kimoni Dimitri Mantheakis v Ally Azim Dewji as restated by the Court of Appeal in Sojanm Springfields. All parties and advocates were present and no objection to the methodology was raised. Allegations of assumption of boundary measurements were not borne out by the report. Concerns about the absence of a licensed surveyor go to probative weight, not admissibility.
Legal principles established
#- Observations made during a locus in quo visit do not replace trial evidence but aid the Court in understanding matters in controversy
- Recording the existence, location and visible developments on disputed land is a matter of ordinary observation not requiring specialized survey expertise; absence of a surveyor goes to weight, not admissibility
- A Deputy Registrar conducting a site visit is expected to report observations and conclusions including boundaries as pointed out by the parties
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 18th February 2026 by the 4th and 5th Defendants is unmerited and disallowed
- 2.The site visit report filed by the Deputy Registrar is admissible and shall remain on the record; it shall not be expunged
- 3.No fresh site visit shall be conducted with the assistance of a licensed surveyor
- 4.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 31 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Expungement of the site visit report from the record
The report was based on ordinary observation and party participation, not scientific findings, and no bias or procedural breach was established
Declaration that the report is inadmissible and of no probative value
The recording of existence, location and visible developments is a matter of ordinary observation not requiring specialized survey expertise
A fresh site visit with a licensed surveyor present
No protest was raised during the site visit and no basis to expunge the report was demonstrated
Costs
No order as to costs
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 circumstances, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will disallow it, but make no Order as to costs.
The Court has power to direct a visit to the locus in quo, as under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, it can issue orders to ensure the ends of justice are met.
recording of the existence, location and visible developments on the suit land in the impugned report is a matter of ordinary observation, which did not require specialized survey expertise.
any concerns regarding the absence of a licensed surveyor go to the probative weight to be attached to the site visit report by the Court, rather than to its admissibility or competence.
Issues in the judgment
#Party roles are internally inconsistent: the 3rd Defendant is described as filing a replying affidavit and submissions, but paragraphs 5 and 7 attribute averments to 'the 1st Defendant' and 'the 2nd Plaintiff' with shifting pronouns ('He'/'She'/'He')
The judgment inconsistently spells the Court of Appeal case as both 'Sojanm Spring fields Limited' and 'Sojanm Springfields Limited'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwanzi & another (Both trading as "Kayole Hekima Academy Educational Centre") v Mwangi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 126 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 3359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3359/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.