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 judgment (Originating Summons)· [2025] KEELC 7439 (KLR)

Masieyi & 2 others v Chebet & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7439 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 October 2025
ANA. Nyukuri
1,673 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a boundary dispute suit because disputes over general boundaries must first go to the Land Registrar, not the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an Originating Summons in which the applicants alleged that the respondents had interfered with the boundaries of their parcels of land (South Wanga/Ekero/1812, 1813, 2140 and 2141) and blocked access to their land. The applicants sought declarations that the respondents had blocked access, an order for maintenance of boundary features, and an order for the opening of an access road, with the assistance of the Kakamega County Land Registrar and surveyor if necessary. On 25th February 2025 the court, suo moto, directed the parties to address it on jurisdiction. The applicants relied on Article 162 of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, arguing the court had power over access-road disputes, and relied on a consent order dated 22nd August 2024 permitting a second survey. The respondents submitted that under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, boundary disputes over general boundaries lie with the Land Registrar. The court held that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute and cannot be conferred by consent; the consent order could not confer jurisdiction. Since the suit properties were titled under the repealed Registered Land Act Cap 300 and the maps created general boundaries, section 18 of the Land Registration Act barred the court from entertaining the dispute and vested jurisdiction in the Land Registrar, read with Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017, which provides a procedure for ascertaining disputed boundaries with an appeal to the court thereafter. Following Nzau v Kemei, the court found it lacked original jurisdiction and struck out the applicants' suit with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to determine a boundary dispute concerning general boundaries

Holding

The court lacks original jurisdiction; the dispute must first be determined by the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act and Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, with an appeal lying to the court thereafter.

Reasoning

The suit properties were titled under the repealed Registered Land Act Cap 300, whose maps created general, not fixed, boundaries. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act bars the court from entertaining boundary disputes unless boundaries have been fixed. Regulation 40 provides the procedure for the Registrar to ascertain disputed boundaries, and an aggrieved party may appeal to the court within thirty days. A consent order for resurvey could not confer jurisdiction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute and cannot be conferred by consent of the parties
  • Section 18 of the Land Registration Act bars the court from entertaining boundary disputes concerning general (non-fixed) boundaries; such disputes vest in the Land Registrar
  • A consent order cannot cure a court's lack of jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants' suit is struck out
  2. 2.Costs to the respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162 of the Constitution; sections 4 and 13(2)(e) of the Environment and Land Court Act; section 18 of the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Masieyi & 2 others v Chebet & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7439 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Originating Summons). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7439/eng@2025-10-29

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