Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2018] KEELC 2567 (KLR)

Stephen Ole Barta & 2 others v Fraa Awaro [2018] KEELC 2567 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 March 2018
MKMohamed N. Kullow
138 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Narok court sent a land boundary dispute back to basics: the land registrar and surveyor must visit the land and file a boundary report within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ruling delivered by Mohamed N. Kullow, Judge, at the Environment and Land Court in Narok on 12th March 2018, determining the Plaintiffs' application dated 13th October 2017 in a dispute over land parcels Trans Mara/Kerikani/8 and 530. The court found that the suit is mainly hinged on the issue of a boundary between the two parcels. Rather than resolving the dispute on the papers, the court allowed the application as prayed and directed the land registrar and the surveyor to visit the suit land to establish the boundary and the exact location and position of parcels Trans Mara/Kerikani/8 and 530, and to determine whether there is any encroachment on parcel No. Trans Mara. The Registrar was ordered to file the resulting report within 30 days from the date of the order. The ruling contains no discussion of any authorities or statutes, no analysis of the parties' rival submissions, and no costs order. It is an interlocutory direction deferring the substantive boundary determination to the registrar's and surveyor's site visit and report. Counsel appearing were Ms Mireri for the Plaintiffs and Ms Njagua holding brief for O.M. Otieno for the Defendant, with Chuma as court assistant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Determination of boundary dispute between land parcels Trans Mara/Kerikani/8 and 530

Holding

The application seeking a site visit by the land registrar and surveyor was allowed as prayed

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the entire suit is principally about a boundary between the two parcels. Rather than determining the boundary itself on the pleadings, the proper course was to have the land registrar and surveyor visit the suit land to establish the boundary, the exact location and position of the parcels, and whether there is any encroachment, with a report to be filed within 30 days.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a suit is mainly hinged on a boundary issue, the court may direct the land registrar and surveyor to visit the suit land, establish the boundary and determine any encroachment, with a report filed within a fixed period

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' application dated 13th October, 2017 is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The land registrar and the surveyor to visit the suit land and establish the boundary and the exact location and position of land parcel No. Trans Mara/Kerikani/8 and 530 and determine whether there is any encroachment on parcel No. Trans Mara
  3. 3.The Registrar to file the said report within 30 days from the date of the order
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over boundary disputes concerning land parcels)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Ole Barta & 2 others v Fraa Awaro [2018] KEELC 2567 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2567/eng@2018-03-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.