Ochieng v Nyanjong (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2920 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's appeal because he admitted encroaching on his neighbour's land, and ordered no costs since both are neighbours.
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 appeal is merited.
- 2.Who should bear the cost of the appeal.
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court erred in finding encroachment despite two conflicting survey reports
The appeal failed because the Appellant did not dispute that he had encroached onto the Respondent's parcel, and confirmed on cross-examination that the dispute was one of encroachment.
The court noted it was not in dispute that the parties' parcels were distinct (5883 and 4400) and that there were two survey reports. The sub-county report recommended a resurvey while the regional surveyor found part of parcel 4400 fenced off with parcel 5883. However, the decisive fact was that the Appellant never disputed the encroachment, so the trial magistrate was entitled to find the claim proved on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the trial magistrate usurped the powers of the Land Registrar under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
The court did not accept this argument; it upheld the trial court's finding of encroachment on the basis that the Appellant admitted the encroachment, without pronouncing on the boundary-determination mandate.
Counsel for the Appellant argued the boundary dispute was the sole preserve of the Land Registrar under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act and that the trial court usurped those powers. The court, applying the first-appeal principles in Selle, focused instead on the undisputed encroachment and the Appellant's confirmation on cross-examination, and found the trial court's conclusion sound.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Oyugis
- Oyugis MCELC No. E029 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the ruling/judgment of the Principal Magistrate's Court in Oyugis MCELC No. E029 of 2021
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the trial court's judgment (eviction order, permanent injunction and general damages)
The court found the Appellant did not dispute the encroachment and that the trial court rightly found the Respondent had proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
Costs of the appeal and of the subordinate court
Given the parties are neighbours, the court declined to award costs to either side.
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the Appeal.
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 upshot of the foregoing is that the appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
On costs, based on the fact that the parties are neighbors, each party shall bear its own costs of the Appeal.
It is this court's view that the trial court did not err in finding that the Respondent had proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the trial decision as both a ruling and a judgment delivered on 4th April 2024, and alternates between 'Brief Facts' headings for both the appeal and the underlying suit; party names are also not stated in the judgment, only roles.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ochieng v Nyanjong (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 2920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Oyugis Environment and Land Court Appeal (from Oyugis MCELC No. E029 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2920/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.