Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out· [2025] KEELC 7341 (KLR)

Sekento v Sayo; County Surveyor, Kajiado County & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 47 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7341 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 October 2025
895 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a boundary dispute suit, confirming neighbours must first take such disputes to the Land Registrar, not the courts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant over a boundary dispute between adjoining parcels Kajiado/Ewuaso-Kedong/2787 and Kajiado/Ewuaso-Kedong/1665, seeking an order directing the County Surveyor for Kajiado West Sub-County to fix beacons on the parcels, together with a prayer for injunction against interference or encroachment. At the hearing on jurisdiction, State Counsel Ms. Chimau for the Attorney General (2nd Interested Party) and Mr. Njagi for the Defendant submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction over boundary disputes; Mr. Mbeche for the Plaintiff conceded the dispute was a boundary one but argued the encroachment aspect fell within the court's jurisdiction. M.D. Mwangi J held that Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act vests jurisdiction over boundary disputes in the Land Registrar, following Azzuri Limited v Pink Properties Limited and George Kamau Macharia v Dexka Limited, and that the court cannot entertain such a dispute until the Registrar has determined the boundary. Drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia v Peri Pesi Tobiko and the Court of Appeal in Orange Democratic Movement v Yusuf Ali Mohammed, the court held that jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by pleading, and that the injunction/encroachment prayer was peripheral and could not confer jurisdiction. 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

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over the boundary dispute

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; boundary disputes over land with general boundaries must first go to the Land Registrar under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act

Reasoning

Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act vests jurisdiction over boundary disputes in the Land Registrar and enjoins courts from entertaining such disputes until the Registrar has determined the boundary. The Court of Appeal in Azzuri Limited and Kemei J in George Kamau Macharia affirm this. The encroachment claim and injunction prayer are peripheral to the boundary dispute and cannot confer jurisdiction by pleading.

p. 2
02

Whether the injunction/encroachment prayer confers jurisdiction

Holding

No; peripheral relief cannot confer jurisdiction where the substance of the claim is a boundary dispute

Reasoning

Relying on Orange Democratic Movement v Yusuf Ali Mohammed, the court held that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation, not from pleadings. The substance of the claim being boundary determination, the inclusion of an injunction to restrain interference or encroachment cannot expand the court's jurisdictional competence.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction to hear and determine boundary disputes over registered land with general boundaries is vested in the Land Registrar under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act
  • A court cannot entertain an action relating to a boundary dispute unless the boundary has first been determined by the Land Registrar
  • Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by pleading; the substance of the claim and relief sought determines a court's jurisdictional competence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs

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
Not expressly invoked; determination made on want of jurisdiction under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sekento v Sayo; County Surveyor, Kajiado County & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 47 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7341 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7341/eng@2025-10-28

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