Indata v Makanga (Environment & Land Case E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3828 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan courts cannot decide land boundary disputes — that is the Land Registrar's job — but courts can order police security so the Registrar can do the survey safely.
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 court can direct the OCS Luanda to provide security to the Land Registrar to survey and determine the boundary between parcels W/Bunyore/ebusiekwe/2146 and 2145
- 2.Whether the court has jurisdiction over the boundary dispute itself under section 18 of the Land Registration Act
- 3.Whether the prayers for injunction and demolition of structures are competent at this stage
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over boundary disputes
The court lacks jurisdiction under section 18 LRA; the dispute belongs to the Land Registrar, but the court can facilitate the Registrar's exercise by ordering security.
The court identified the subject matter as a boundary dispute reserved to the Land Registrar by section 18 of the Land Registration Act. However, the Registrar's report showed the survey could not proceed because of hostility at the site and advice from the area administration that security officers were required. The court therefore granted only the facilitative relief directing the OCS Luanda to provide security, leaving the substantive dispute to the Registrar.
Premature substantive reliefs
The injunction and demolition prayers were premature and misconceived under section 18(2) LRA.
The court held that the injunction and demolition prayers were substantive reliefs that must be pursued in an appropriate forum. Since boundary determination by the Land Registrar has not occurred, any claim of encroachment and entitlement to demolish structures is premature and section 18(2) bars the court from determining the boundary itself.
Respondent's fraud allegation against the applicant's title
Rejected as no suit challenging the title was before the court.
The Respondent alleged the applicant's title was procured by fraud, but no suit challenging the title was pending. Evidence showed the land remained registered in the applicant's name at filing. Without a challenge to title, the objection carried no weight and did not defeat the application for security to enable the survey.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 18 of the Land Registration Act, the court has no jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes; that power lies with the Land Registrar.
- A court may direct police security to enable the Land Registrar to carry out a boundary determination where obstruction prevents the exercise.
Court orders
#- 1.The OCS Luanda police station to provide security to the Land Registrar Vihiga County to survey and determine the common boundary line between parcels of land Nos. W/Bunyore/ebusiekwe/2146 and 2145
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Land Registration Act, section 18; inherent jurisdiction to direct security for boundary determination
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the Respondent from entering upon or interfering with W/Bunyore/ebusiekwe/2146
Substantive relief premature and misconceived given section 18(2) Land Registration Act bar on court jurisdiction over boundary disputes
Demolition/vandalization of structures erected across the boundary
Same - substantive relief for an appropriate forum after boundary determination
Costs of the application to be borne by the Respondent
Court ordered each party to bear own costs
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
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.
It is clear that the subject matter of the application is a boundary dispute and as submitted on behalf of the applicant, the power to determine boundary disputes is with the Land Registrar. Under the provisions of section 18 of the Land Registration Act, the court has no jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes.
The prayer for injunction and for demolition of structures are substantive reliefs that ought to be sought for in an appropriate forum. Herein they are premature and misconceived in view of the provisions of section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act.
The court finds that the application is partly merited and hereby allows it in the following terms: i. The OCS Luanda police station to provide security to the Land Registrar Vihiga County to survey and determine the common boundary line between parcels of land No.s W/Bunyore/ebusiekwe/2146 and 2145. ii. Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Indata v Makanga (Environment & Land Case E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3828 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 9th January 2025 (Miscellaneous Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3828/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.