Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out· [2025] KEELC 7340 (KLR)

Kario v Sekento; County Surveyor, Kajiado County & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 48 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7340 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 October 2025
MMM.D. Mwangi
899 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (M.D. Mwangi J) determined a preliminary question of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, by amended plaint dated 29th April 2025, complained of a boundary dispute with the Defendant over abutting parcels Kajiado/Ewuaso-Kedong/2776 and Kajiado/Ewuaso-Kedong/8276 & 8257, alleging that efforts to mediate had been frustrated, and sought an order directing the County Surveyor for Kajiado West Sub-County to fix boundaries by erecting beacons, together with an injunction against interference or encroachment. State Counsel for the Attorney General (2nd Interested Party) and counsel for the Defendant submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction over boundary disputes; Plaintiff's counsel conceded it was a boundary dispute but argued the encroachment aspect fell within the court's jurisdiction. The court held that under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, jurisdiction over boundary disputes vests in the Land Registrar, following Azzuri Limited v Pink Properties Limited and George Kamau Macharia v Dexka Limited, and applied the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that jurisdiction flows only from the constitution or legislation. The encroachment claim and injunction prayer were held peripheral and incapable of conferring jurisdiction, which is determined by the substance of the claim. The Plaintiff was granted liberty to approach the Land Registrar under Section 18(2) as read with rule 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017, which the court described as self-executing. The suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction, with each party bearing its own costs to promote reconciliation between the neighbours.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over boundary disputes between registered land parcels

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act vests determination of boundary disputes in the Land Registrar

Reasoning

The dispute between the parcels Kajiado/Ewuaso-Kedong/2776 and 8276 & 8257 is plainly a boundary dispute. Section 18(2) enjoins courts from entertaining boundary disputes unless the boundaries have first been determined by the Land Registrar. Superior court decisions confirm this. The encroachment claim is peripheral and subject to the boundary determination.

p. 2
02

Whether pleadings can confer jurisdiction

Holding

No; it is the substance of the claim and relief sought that determines jurisdictional competence

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal in Orange Democratic Movement v Yusuf Ali Mohammed, the court held that parties cannot through draftsmanship convert a claim into one within a court's jurisdiction. The addition of an injunction prayer cannot transform a boundary dispute into a justiciable court matter.

p. 2
03

Availability of an alternative remedy

Holding

The Plaintiff may approach the Land Registrar under Section 18(2) and rule 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017

Reasoning

Rule 40 is self-executing, providing both the mode of application for re-establishing a missing boundary or ascertainment of a disputed boundary, and for implementation of the Land Registrar's decision.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction to hear and determine boundary disputes over registered land is vested in the Land Registrar, and courts cannot entertain such disputes until the registrar has determined the boundaries
  • Jurisdiction flows from the constitution or legislation and a court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that conferred by law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
  3. 3.Liberty to the Plaintiff to approach the Land Registrar under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act as read with rule 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 18(2)
  • Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017Rule 40

Cases cited (4)

  • Azzuri Limited –vs- Pink Properties Limited
    (2018) eKLR
  • George Kamau Macharia –vs- Dexka Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & another –vs- Peri Pesi Tobiko and 2 others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Orange Democratic Movement –vs- Yusuf Ali Mohammed and 5 others
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

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, "Kario v Sekento; County Surveyor, Kajiado County & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 48 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7340/eng@2025-10-28

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