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 7559 (KLR)

Oyaro v Saitabu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 745 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7559 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 October 2025
MMM.D. Mwangi
1,210 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a boundary dispute suit, confirming that Land Registrars—not courts—must first determine boundary disputes over registered land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a suit before the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado in which the Plaintiff sought, among other reliefs, an order compelling the Land Registrar, Kajiado (3rd Defendant) to determine the boundaries of his property in relation to neighbouring parcels L.R 18619, 18620 and Kajiado/Kitengela/18378. On 24th October 2024 the parties had recorded a consent before the predecessor judge, Gicheru J, referring the boundary determination to the District Land Registrar, which exercise was undertaken and confirmed to the court on 11th June 2025. State Counsel Ms. Kubai then raised a preliminary issue that the court lacked jurisdiction, a position supported by counsel for the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Plaintiff's Advocate maintained that a Survey report had raised issues beyond the Land Registrar's mandate. The court held that under section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, jurisdiction over boundary disputes is vested exclusively in the Land Registrar, as settled by the Court of Appeal in Azzuri Limited v Pink Properties Limited and George Kamau Macharia v Dexka Limited, and that a party cannot confer jurisdiction by draftsmanship, per Orange Democratic Movement v Yusuf Ali Mohammed and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on jurisdiction. The court found the substance of the claim was a boundary dispute, that peripheral unexplained prayers could not confer jurisdiction, and that the consent had acknowledged the Registrar as the proper forum. The suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction, with each party bearing its own costs to promote reconciliation between the neighbouring parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over boundary disputes

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit whose gravamen is a boundary dispute; such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar under section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act

Reasoning

Section 18(2) vests jurisdiction over boundary disputes in the Land Registrar and enjoins courts not to entertain such actions unless boundaries have first been determined by the Registrar. Superior courts, including the Court of Appeal and High Court, have settled this position. The consent referring the matter to the Registrar confirmed the proper forum, and the court's function was exhausted upon that consent.

p. 2
02

Draftsmanship cannot confer jurisdiction

Holding

Peripheral prayers appended to a boundary dispute claim without an explained basis cannot confer jurisdiction on the court

Reasoning

The plaintiff sought primarily an order compelling the Land Registrar to determine boundaries, but added other reliefs without explaining their basis in the plaint. Following the Court of Appeal in Orange Democratic Movement v Yusuf Ali Mohammed, jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by pleading; it is the substance of the claim and relief sought that determines a court's jurisdictional competence.

p. 3

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 party cannot confer jurisdiction on a court through draftsmanship or the framing of pleadings; jurisdiction is conferred by law
  • A dissatisfied party may appeal the Land Registrar's boundary determination to the court under rule 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017

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
Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act - jurisdiction over boundary disputes vested in the Land Registrar, not the court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Oyaro v Saitabu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 745 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 7559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7559/eng@2025-10-29

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