Kisvi v Katiku & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7363 (KLR) (29 October 2025) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 7363 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MAKUENI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E019 OF 2024 EO OBAGA, J OCTOBER 29, 2025 BETWEEN THERESIA NTHAMBI KISVI .................................................................. PLAINTIFF AND ESTHER NDULULU KATIKU ....................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT KITHUKA KATIKU ....................................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT FLORENCE MUTHEE MULI ......................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT LAND SURVEYOR, MAKUENI .................................................... 4TH DEFENDANT LAND REGISTRAR, MAKUENI COUNTY ................................ 5TH DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintifi filed this suit against the Defendants seeking the following reliefs: 1. Closure of the illegal access road passing through Plaintifi’s land parcel Makueni/Kako/2600. 2. Fresh survey to be conducted to ascertain the exact boundary between land parcel Makueni/ Kako/2600 and 217. 3. Costs of this suit. 4. Any other just relief this honourable court deems fit to grant. 2. The Defendants who were duly served neither entered appearance nor filed defence. The case therefore proceeded by way of formal proof. 3. The Plaintifi testified that she is the owner of LR No. Makueni/Kako/2600 (suit property) which neighbours LR No. Makueni/Kako/217 which is owned by Jonathan Katiku Ngututu (deceased). https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7363/eng@2025-10-29 1
page 1 of 2
The 1st Defendant is widow of the deceased. The 2nd Defendant is son to the deceased whereas the 3rd Defendant is daughter in law to the deceased. 4. The 1st to 3rd Defendants sold LR No. Makueni/Kako/217 to third parties and illegally created an access road through the suit property. The Plaintifi contacted a surveyor from Makueni County who visited the two parcels and confirmed that indeed the access road being used by the 1st to 3rd Defendants and the purchasers passes through her land and that it does not exist in the Registry Index Map. 5. The Plaintifi produced a survey report dated 29th May, 2024. The Plaintifi testified that she took a surveyor to the ground to position the access road on the correct side but the 1st to 3rd Defendants resisted. It is on this basis that she is seeking the reliefs in the plaint. 6. I have considered the evidence of the Plaintifi which is not controverted. From the survey report produced, the access road which is being used by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants is on her land. This access road should not be used by the 1st to 3rd Defendants who are trespassing on it. 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. ...................................... HON. E. O. OBAGA JUDGE JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. In the presence of: The Plaintifi Court assistant – Steve Musyoki https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7363/eng@2025-10-29 2
page 2 of 2