Nyaguti v Ranguma & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 169 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6528 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that even powerful landowners cannot fence off Lake Victoria's protected 100-metre shoreline or block public access to the lake.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Defendant encroached on the Lake Victoria riparian reserve
Yes - he developed his parcels beyond the demarcated boundaries into the 100-metre riparian reserve
The court relied on the court-ordered survey report showing the 1st Defendant fenced off part of the lake reserve with a concrete fence (est. 0.08Ha), and on its own site visit which showed development went right up to the lakeshore with no space between the home and the lake.
Whether the 2nd Defendant encroached on the lake reserve
Yes, but the encroachment had ceased by the time of the hearing and site visit
Although the survey report of 11th March 2021 found no encroachment on Title No. Kisumu/Korando/5232, the evidence and site visit confirmed a fence had previously extended beyond the boundary into the riparian reserve, though it was no longer in place.
Whether the 3rd Defendant encroached on the lake riparian reserve
Yes - her fence covered part of the riparian reserve and a public road, but the encroachment had ceased by trial
The court weighed the court-ordered County Land Registrar and Surveyor report against the surveyor engaged by the 3rd Defendant, and the court's own site visit which found the fence and temporary structures no longer in place. It found encroachment had occurred but had ceased.
Whether the Plaintifi proved wrongdoing by the 4th and 5th Defendants
No wrongdoing was established against them
The court noted that the plaintiff proved his case only against the 1st to 3rd Defendants on a balance of probabilities; no case was made against NEMA or the Attorney General, so no relief was granted in respect of them.
Legal principles established
#- Landowners may not encroach on the lake riparian reserve or obstruct community access to the lake
- For lakes, a riparian reserve of not less than one hundred and not more than two hundred metres from the highest water mark applies
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants illegally encroached on the Lake Victoria riparian reserve by extending the fences around their parcels of land beyond their demarcated boundaries
- 2.A declaration that the communities living along Lake Victoria have a right to unhindered access to the lake through the roads of access provided for that purpose, save where such access is restricted or limited by law
- 3.An order for the 1st Defendant to remove within 90 days the illegal perimeter walls built beyond the demarcated boundaries of Title Nos. Kisumu/Korando/3755 and 3756 and to demolish any structures on the lake riparian reserve, limiting development to the demarcated boundaries
- 4.An order for the 2nd Defendant to re-survey at his cost land parcel Title No. Kisumu/Korando/5232 within 90 days and re-open the public access road traversing the property
- 5.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from implementing or engaging in any activity or construction works which interfere with the Lake Victoria riparian reserve
- 6.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 42, 69 and 70 of the Constitution and the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act 1999
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyaguti v Ranguma & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 169 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6528 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided (Kisumu Environment and Land Court suit, plaint dated 27th June 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6528/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.