Amunze & another (Suing for and on Behalf of the Estate of Andrew Amunze Ayuka (Deceased)) v Adongo & another (Environment and Land Case 3 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 6848 (KLR)
The bottom line
#If you disagree with a Land Registrar's boundary decision in Kenya, you must appeal or seek review — simply ignoring or resisting it will not save you.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs proved encroachment onto parcel No. 206
Encroachment proved. Both survey reports agreed there were discrepancies between ground measurements and the RIM, and the County Surveyor's report was conclusive that there was interference with the plaintiffs' parcel; the defendants' rival report was not prepared by a qualified or licensed expert.
The court found that the plaintiffs invoked the Land Registrar, who caused the boundaries to be ascertained in accordance with Sections 16-19 of the Land Registration Act, relying on records under Section 14(1). The County Surveyor placed beacons and made recommendations. The defendants never appealed or sought review of that determination, produced no credible rival expert evidence, and offered no evidence that the Registrar's determination was not the actual boundary.
Whether the defendants were justified in resisting implementation of the survey report
Not justified. The statutory procedure was fully complied with; the defendants, having participated in the process, could not ignore the boundary dispute resolution without appealing under Section 86 of the Land Registration Act or filing a counterclaim or joining the Land Registrar.
The court held the Land Registrar exercised the statutory power and established the boundaries before the suit was filed. No appeal was preferred against the determination. The letters issued through the area chief showed notice to the parties. The Registrar's evidence was unchallenged, and the rival report lacked qualifications, licence, and certification of the Google imagery.
Whether the court had jurisdiction over the boundary dispute given Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act
The court's jurisdiction was properly invoked because the Land Registrar had already determined the dispute in accordance with the statutory procedure before the suit was filed, and no appeal lay against that determination unexercised.
Relying on Estate Sonrisa Ltd and Mberia -vs- Mbui, the court noted that a Land Registrar's statutory determination under Sections 16-19 cannot be disregarded, and an aggrieved party must appeal to court under the Act. Here the Registrar's process preceded the suit; the defendants did not appeal, review, counterclaim, or join the Registrar, so the Registrar's determination stood.
Limitation of actions defence
The limitation defence did not prevail, as the cause of action arose from the survey, the establishment of the boundaries, and the issuance of title deeds, not from the original subdivision.
The defendants argued the claim was caught by Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act because the plaintiffs did not object while Hebron Amunze was alive or during the succession cause. The court located the cause of action in the boundary survey and resistance to its implementation, following the framing of the cause of action in the further amended plaint.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is foundational; without it a court cannot act
- A registered acreage must tally with the position on the ground
- A party aggrieved by a Land Registrar's boundary determination must appeal or seek review under the Land Registration Act; resistance to implementation is not a substitute
Court orders
#- 1.Permanent injunction barring and restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, or employees, from interfering with the plaintiffs' use or act of fencing L.R. No. Kolongolo/Kolongolo Block 2/Biketi/206
- 2.An order directing the County Land Registrar to amend the green cards and RIM to reflect L.R. No. 206 as measuring 4.57 Ha, L.R. No. 416 as measuring 5.40 Ha, and L.R. No. 417 as 3.32 Ha
- 3.An order directing the excess acreage of 0.34 Ha to be divided among the three parcels as per the surveyor's report and recommendations dated 5/10/2022
- 4.An order that the boundaries between L.R. Nos. 416 and 417 be marked and pointed out to the representatives of the plaintiffs and the defendants on the ground as per the survey sketch and County Surveyor's report dated 5/10/2022
- 5.Costs to the plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land boundary and title disputes; the court considered the restriction in Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act and the Registrar's statutory determination under Sections 16-19
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amunze & another (Suing for and on Behalf of the Estate of Andrew Amunze Ayuka (Deceased)) v Adongo & another (Environment and Land Case 3 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 6848 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6848/eng@2025-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.