Longurokol v Lokudo (Environment and Land Case 118 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7171 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a trespass claim because a decades-old minister's land adjudication decision fixing the boundary was final and could not be reopened.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved trespass to parcel No. West Pokot/Kishaunet/695
No. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden under Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act; the County Surveyor found the defendant utilizing parcel No. 277 and the plaintiff parcel No. 268, and no valuation, Land Registrar or surveyor's report particularized the alleged encroachment.
Trespass requires proof of a right to immediate and exclusive possession and an unauthorized entry. The plaintiff's title bore a restriction noting a pending minister's appeal, and the minister's decision fixing the river as the boundary had been made and implemented through amendment of the RIM. Without a rival survey report or evidence quantifying encroachment, the claim of trespass was unproven.
Whether the court could disregard or reopen the minister's appeal decision
No. The minister's decision under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 is final; the adjudication register became final and the court has no jurisdiction to reopen it, and no judicial review proceedings to quash the decision were filed.
The minister's appeal was lodged by the defendant's grandfather against the adjudication decision; the plaintiff's mother participated, and the outcome was communicated for implementation and reflected in the amended RIM. The plaintiff never moved the High Court under Section 29 nor pleaded particulars of out-of-time filing or unreasonable delay in the reply to defence. The claim rested on a mistaken belief that no minister's decision existed.
Whether the boundaries of parcels 277, 268, 694 and 695 had been determined
Yes - the minister's appeal decision fixed the river as the boundary, and the RIM dated 19/7/2018 was amended in accordance with that decision.
The recalled County Surveyor relied on the adjudication rough book, adjudication records, current and previous RIMs, mutation forms and the minister's decision, and fixed the boundaries per the minister's appeal. The title deeds issued to the plaintiff carried restrictions noting the pending minister's appeal, and correspondence confirmed implementation of the acreages of 9.0 Ha and 24.9 Ha.
Legal principles established
#- A minister's appeal decision under Section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act is final and, once made, the adjudication register becomes final in all respects and cannot be reopened by an inferior court.
- The proper plaintiff in trespass to land is the person with title or deemed possession at the time of the alleged trespass, and trespass is a violation of the right to immediate and exclusive possession.
- Delay in hearing and concluding a minister's appeal does not oust the minister's powers or invalidate the decision.
- A party challenging an expert report must produce a rival report; without one, the challenged report stands.
- He who seeks equitable remedies must come with clean hands and make full disclosure of material facts.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over title, trespass and boundary disputes relating to land in West Pokot (Article 162(2)(b) jurisdiction); court expressly held it lacked jurisdiction to reopen a concluded adjudication register
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Longurokol v Lokudo (Environment and Land Case 118 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7171 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as reproduced (ELC suit at Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7171/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.