Githinji & another v Wairimu & 4 others (Land Case E179 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7554 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that a fight over subdividing land into equal shares is not a boundary dispute, allowing the case to proceed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to handle the dispute herein
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a suit concerning subdivision of land and ceding of an access road where a Land Registrar's boundary determination exists
The preliminary objection fails; the suit is not a boundary dispute and the Court has jurisdiction under Section 13(2)(e) of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act bars courts from entertaining boundary disputes unless determined under the Act. The Land Registrar did determine the boundary in June 2024, and the Plaintiffs are not aggrieved by that determination. Their grievance is the 1st and 2nd Defendants' unilateral implementation of Clause 2(i), which required joint application for subdivision into equal portions. A dispute over subdivision into equal shares and ceding a road is not a boundary dispute, so the Court's original jurisdiction is engaged.
What constitutes a proper preliminary objection
A preliminary objection is a point of law pleaded or arising by clear implication from the pleadings which may dispose of the suit (Mukisa Biscuit).
The court applied the classic Mukisa Biscuit definition and the Supreme Court's guidance in IEBC v Jane Cheperenger on the dual purposes of a true preliminary objection - shielding against wasteful deployment of resources and sparing scarce judicial time - before assessing whether the objection met that threshold on jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- An issue revolving around subdivision of land into equal shares and ceding of a road is not a boundary dispute within Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act.
- A party should not unilaterally implement a Land Registrar's boundary determination recommendation requiring joint participation.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26th September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs will be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(2)(e) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Preliminary Objection by the 1st and 2nd Defendants
The dispute is not a boundary dispute but a claim for equal share of land including ceding of a road
Costs
Costs will be in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Preliminary Objection unmerited and will dismiss it.
Costs will be in the cause.
I opine that an issue revolving around subdivision of land into equal shares and ceding of a road cannot be deemed as a boundary dispute as the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ want this Court to believe.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title and case number are not stated in the judgment text provided; the parties are referred to only by role.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githinji & another v Wairimu & 4 others (Land Case E179 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7554 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7554/eng@2025-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.