Barmasai v Rono & 9 others (Civil Appeal E068 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1489 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed a landowner's bid to claim an access road over his neighbour's land, confirming the Registry Index Map decides boundary disputes in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there exists an access road between the appellant's parcel of land number 260 and the 2nd to 8th respondents' land number 261
- 2.Whether the learned Judge erred by ordering the RIM to be amended despite having dismissed the appellant's suit and the 2nd to 8th respondents' counter-claim
- 3.Whether the appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including reliance on section 32 of the Limitation of Actions Act
- 4.Whether the appellant is entitled to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether an access road exists through the respondents' land at point 'A'
The appeal court affirmed the trial court's finding that no access road exists at point 'A'; the appellant failed to prove its existence or erroneous omission from the RIM, and the site visit confirmed an alternative 7-metre access
The Court noted that the RIM is the authoritative cadastral record and that a scheme plan or development plan cannot supersede it. The trial Judge, who had the advantage of a site visit, confirmed the absence of swampiness at the alternative access point. The Court, being a first appellate court bound to defer to findings supported by evidence, found no basis to interfere with those findings, especially where licensed surveyor reports and the County Surveyor supported them.
Whether the trial court could order amendment of the RIM after dismissing both the suit and the counterclaim
Yes; the order flowed from an unpleaded issue that was fully canvassed by all parties and left to the court, and equity and justice merited the relief given the existence of an access road on the ground
Applying the Odd Jobs principle as reaffirmed in Ann Wairimu Wanjohi, the Court held that where an unpleaded issue is crucial, evidence and submissions have been led by both sides, and the matter was left to the court, the court may determine it. Both parties had urged the court to fix the access point, and the County Surveyor recommended the amendment. Refusing the order would have been a dereliction of duty.
Whether the appellant acquired an easement under section 32 of the Limitation of Actions Act
No; the provision was not pleaded or argued at trial and cannot be raised on appeal
The Court reiterated that parties are bound by their pleadings, whose function is to alert the opponent to the case to be met and define the issues for trial. Material facts establishing the cause of action must be pleaded. Since section 32 was neither pleaded nor canvassed below, the trial court had no opportunity to address it, and the point is barred on appeal.
Damages claims by both sides
The rejection of the appellant's special and general damages and of the 2nd to 8th respondents' trespass damages was proper
The trees the appellant claimed for were planted on the respondents' land, so the respondents could not be made to pay for them. Conversely, the respondents' trespass claim failed because they had allowed or countenanced the appellant's family's use of the disputed access for decades, negating any trespass.
Legal principles established
#- A scheme plan cannot supersede the RIM; the RIM is the primary and authoritative record of land boundaries, and inconsistencies are resolved in favour of the RIM
- A statutory provision not pleaded or canvassed at trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; parties are bound by their pleadings
- A court may validly determine an unpleaded issue where both parties led evidence and submissions on it and left it to the court to decide
- On a first appeal, the appellate court interferes with findings of fact only where the trial Judge failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant ones
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The appellant shall pay the 2nd to 8th respondents the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the trial court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Eldoret
- ELC No. 89 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the appellate framework for second superior court appeals (the judgment states 'This is a first appeal; therefore, it is by way of retrial')
Relief refused
#Declaration and reinstatement of the access road through parcel 261 at point 'A'
The appellant failed to prove that an access road exists at point 'A' or that it was erroneously omitted from the RIM; the scheme plan cannot supersede the RIM
Reliance on section 32 of the Limitation of Actions Act (acquisition of easement by 20 years' user)
The provision was neither pleaded nor canvassed before the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
Special damages of Kshs.176,723/- and general damages of Kshs.500,000/-
The trees were planted on the 2nd to 8th respondents' land, which cannot be condemned to pay for what was planted on their land
Costs
The appellant shall pay the 2nd to 8th respondents the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before 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.
The RIM serves as the primary and authoritative record of land boundaries and parcels, and any inconsistencies between a scheme plan and the RIM are generally resolved in favor of the RIM.
Section 32 of the Limitation of Actions Act was not pleaded nor was it canvassed before the trial court. Therefore, the trial court did not have the benefit of addressing its mind to the said issue. It cannot be raised at this stage.
It is settled law that a court may validly determine an unpleaded issue where evidence is led by the parties and from the course followed at trial it appears that the unpleaded issue has been left to the court to decide the matter.
Flowing from our findings on the issues discussed herein above, it is evidently clear that this appeal is devoid of merit and the only available order is to dismiss it, which hereby do. The appellant shall pay the 2nd to 8th respondents the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the trial court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is internally inconsistent as to the third parcel at the alternative access intersection: paragraph 8 records the trial court's order as the intersection of parcels 260, 261 and 242, while the quoted excerpt of the trial judgment at paragraph 32 refers to the intersection of parcels 260, 261 and 262
The appellant's memorandum of appeal is recorded as relying on section 20 of the Limitation of Actions Act for easement acquisition, yet the judgment and submissions discuss section 32 as the operative provision, and the court states section 20 concerns trust property and has no relevance
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Chebet (Suing through his personal representative, namely Joseph Kiprotich Rop) v Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 8 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 552 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 552 (KLR)4 Feb 2026followed
- Mukhwana v Sawenja & another (Environment and Land Case 60 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 467 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 467 (KLR)4 Feb 2026
- Joseph (Represented by Sammy Kirui Cheptoo as next friend) v Kigen & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 89 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 8500 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8500 (KLR)3 Dec 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Barmasai v Rono & 9 others (Civil Appeal E068 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1489 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Court of Appeal, Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1489/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.