Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the extract (ELC suit, Narok)· [2025] KEELC 3066 (KLR)

Kenda v Njapit & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E013 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 3066 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 April 2025
LGL. GACHERU
2,386 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Narok court ordered government surveyors to visit disputed land and measure its true boundaries before it can decide who owns 20 acres in question.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Narok (L. Gacheru J) in a suit by Hon. Moitalel Ole Kenta against six defendants, including the Attorney General on behalf of state officers, concerning land parcels Cis Mara/Oldonyo Rasha/169 and 1300. The plaintiff alleged the defendants fraudulently created a mutation form and register for parcel 1300, dispossessing him of 20.23 Ha. After both parties closed their cases, the 1st–3rd defendants orally applied for a court site visit to establish whether parcel 1300 encroached on parcel 169 - an application similar to one dismissed by a ruling of 25th May 2023 on the ground that it was premature before evidence was taken. The court distinguished the earlier ruling, noting it had expressly reserved the option of ordering a site visit after parties presented their cases. Applying sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and the principles in Beatrice Ngonyo Ndungu and Atek Otech Richard, the court held a site visit was necessary to resolve the factual conflict on encroachment, while acknowledging that boundary determination is the preserve of the Surveyor and Land Registrar. The court directed the District Land Registrar and District Surveyor, Narok, to visit the ground, ascertain the size and boundaries of the parcels, and file a report within 21 days, with the defendants facilitating the visit. No costs order was made. The main suit remains pending determination.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should order a site visit in the circumstances

Holding

Yes - where there is an unresolved conflict as to whether parcel 1300 encroached on parcel 169 and hived off 20.23 Ha, a ground visit by the Land Registrar and Surveyor is necessary

Reasoning

The court noted that the earlier application was dismissed only because no evidence had been adduced and a visit then would amount to assisting parties gather evidence. Now that both sides have closed their cases, the court held a site visit is necessary to establish whether the creation of parcel 1300 affected the plaintiff's acreage before determining the fraud claim. Since the court lacks survey expertise, the Registrar and Surveyor must conduct the visit and report.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The purpose of a site visit is gathering evidence to assist the court in making a just determination
  • A judge is not an expert in determining boundaries; that is the preserve of the Surveyor and Land Registrar
  • An earlier dismissal of a site-visit application made before evidence was adduced does not bar a later application after parties have presented their case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.District Land Registrar and District Surveyor, Narok directed to visit the ground and ascertain the size of land parcel No. Cis Mara/Oldonyo Rasha/169 and its boundaries with parcel No. Cis Mara/Oldonyo Rasha/1300 and prepare a Report to be availed in court
  2. 2.Site visit to be conducted on a date agreeable to all parties, with parties and/or their advocates present
  3. 3.Defendants to facilitate the site visit
  4. 4.Site visit (locus quo) to be conducted within 21 days from the date of the order

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Land Registration Actsections 18, 19 and 20

Cases cited (4)

  • Beatrice Ngonyo Ndungu & Another vs Samuel K. Kiprono & 2 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Chira & 2 others vs Kenya Power & Lighting Co. ltd
    ELC Case No 94 of 2019 (2022) KEELC 2519 (KLR)
  • Atek Otech Richard & 11 others v Stelco Properties; M-Oriental Bank Limited (Interested Party)
    [2022] eKLR
  • Jashbhai C Patel vs BD Joshi
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenda v Njapit & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E013 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 3066 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (ELC suit, Narok). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3066/eng@2025-04-03

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