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 OutNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7438 (KLR)

Nangurai v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others; Chief Land Registrar (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E092 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7438 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2025
MMM.D. Mwangi
1,595 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a boundary dispute suit because the Land Registrar must determine boundaries first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a preliminary objection dated 28th July 2025 seeking the striking out of the Plaintiff's suit and attendant applications for want of jurisdiction, contending that the dispute was a boundary dispute over registered land which, under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, must first be determined by the Land Registrar. The court canvassed the objection by written submissions. Applying Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd, the court first found that the objection raised a pure point of law and qualified as a proper preliminary objection. On the central jurisdictional issue, the court relied on Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd and Samuel Kamau Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank, together with the doctrine of exhaustion as articulated in Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume and Peter Oduor Ngoge v Francis Ole Kaparo. The court held that the claim, which concerned the position of a road vis-à-vis the plaintiff's parcel, fell within the primary jurisdiction of the Land Registrar, who has access to the District Surveyor's expertise. As no boundary determination, plan or note evidencing demarcation had been produced, the statutory bar in Section 18(2) was operative. The court held the suit was prematurely instituted and that it was bereft of jurisdiction, and, following Lillian S, downs its tools. The preliminary objection was upheld; the Plaint and all attendant applications were struck out for want of jurisdiction, with the plaintiff at liberty to pursue the procedure before the Land Registrar. The court made no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the objection qualified as a proper preliminary objection

Holding

It did, as it raised a pure point of law on jurisdiction capable of disposing of the suit

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the court found the objection challenged jurisdiction, which is a question of law and, if successful, disposes of the entire suit. No ascertainment of facts or exercise of judicial discretion was required, so the objection met the classic threshold for a preliminary objection.

p. 2
02

Whether the court had jurisdiction over the boundary dispute

Holding

It did not; Section 18(2) bars the court from entertaining boundary disputes unless the boundaries have first been determined by the Land Registrar

Reasoning

The claim concerned the position of a road vis-à-vis the plaintiff's parcel, a matter the Land Registrar can resolve with the District Surveyor's expertise. No determination, plan or note evidencing demarcation was produced, so the statutory bar was operative and the suit was prematurely instituted.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Land Registrar has initial and primary jurisdiction over boundary determination of registered land; the court is barred under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act from entertaining boundary disputes until the Registrar has determined the boundaries

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 28th July 2025 is upheld
  2. 2.The Plaint and all attendant applications filed thereunder are struck out for want of jurisdiction
  3. 3.The Plaintiff is at liberty to pursue the appropriate procedure before the Land Registrar in accordance with Section 18 of the Land Registration Act
  4. 4.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 (jurisdictional bar pending boundary determination by the Land Registrar)

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, "Nangurai v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others; Chief Land Registrar (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E092 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7438 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7438/eng@2025-10-30

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