Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th April, 2024)

Moisany v District Land Registrar, Kajiado Central & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 431 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 January 2026
MMM.D. Mwangi
1,896 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court voided a land registrar's boundary ruling because the surveyor ignored the group ranch Area List and the owner's constitutional property rights.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, registered proprietor of Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/3134, lodged an appeal against a ruling delivered on 13th March 2024 by the Kajiado District Land Registrar, B.K Leitich, who resolved a boundary dispute by adopting a surveyor's recommendation that approximately 12.0ha (points A4 to A4A to A6) be excised from the parcel. The Appellant sought to have the ruling set aside entirely, a fresh boundary measurement conducted, and costs. Only the Appellant filed written submissions, arguing that the survey report was erroneous: it inflated the 3rd Respondent's parcel 3133 from the area list's 53.92ha to 61.1ha, depicted a curved boundary where the Registry Index Map shows a straight line, failed to establish the acreage of all affected parcels, and failed to disclose the primary documents used. The court framed a single issue - whether the appeal is merited - and confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and provisions of the Land Registration Act. It noted the surveyor ignored the group ranch Area List, the basis for allocations, and held that the surveyor erred in recommending the excision without considering the consequences on the Appellant's Article 40 property rights. The appeal was allowed, the Registrar's ruling was set aside entirely, a fresh boundary measurement and determination was ordered before a different land registrar and surveyor, and there were no orders as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Appeal is merited

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC over appeals from Land Registrar boundary decisions

Holding

The court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from Land Registrar decisions on boundary disputes

Reasoning

Counsel cited Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Sections 18, 79(3A), 80, 86 and 91(9) of the Land Registration Act. The court accepted that a party aggrieved by a Land Registrar's boundary determination may appeal to the ELC.

p. 4
02

Whether the Land Registrar's ruling adopting the surveyor's report was erroneous

Holding

Yes - the surveyor failed to consider the group ranch Area List and the consequences of the excision on the Appellant's Article 40 rights

Reasoning

The court found the 1st Respondent failed to consider the group ranch Area List despite it being the basis upon which group ranch land was allocated to members. The surveyor recommended excising 9ha (12ha per findings) without regard to the registered acreage of 25.57ha and without considering the impact on the Appellant's proprietary rights.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The Environment and Land Court is the appropriate forum for appeals from Land Registrars' boundary dispute determinations
  • A survey recommendation excising land without regard to a registered proprietor's constitutional property rights is erroneous

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appeal is hereby allowed
  2. 2.The Ruling delivered on 13th March 2024 by the Kajiado District Land Registrar is set aside entirely
  3. 3.The Boundary measurement and determination of Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/3134 shall be conducted afresh by another land registrar and surveyor other than Mr. B.K Leitich and Mr. Stehphen Mutuku
  4. 4.No orders as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

MM
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Kajiado District Land Registrar
Boundary dispute ruling over Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/3134
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 18, 79(3A), 80, 86 and 91(9) of the Land Registration Act

Relief refused

#

Costs against the Respondents jointly and severally

Court declined to award costs, directing no orders as to costs

p. 5

Costs

There shall be no orders as to costs.

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.

The Appeal is hereby allowed.
p. 5disposition
The Ruling delivered on 13, March 2024 by the Kajiado District Land Registrar is hereby be set aside entirely.
p. 5setting aside registrar's ruling
The Boundary measurement and determination of Kajiado/ Dalalekutuk/ 3134 shall be conducted afresh by another land registrar and surveyor other than Mr. B.K Leitich and Mr. Stehphen Mutuku.
p. 5fresh boundary determination
I find that the surveyor erred when he recommended that 9ha be excised from Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/3134 without considering the consequences of such actions on the Appellant's proprietary rights guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution.
p. 5property rights

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal inconsistency between the finding that 12.0ha should be excised and the finding that 9ha was recommended for excision

minor

Parties referred to as Respondents including a 3rd Respondent, but only '1st Respondent' is identified by name/title; 2nd and 3rd Respondents not formally named

minor

Ruling dated 13 March 2024 but Memorandum of Appeal dated 11 April 2024 said to be lodged 'before this court' as an appeal - some ambiguity as to the appellate channel from the Registrar's decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moisany v District Land Registrar, Kajiado Central & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 431 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Appeal dated 11th April, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/431/eng@2026-01-29

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