Ndeda v Okonyole & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 215 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1030 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu land court ruled the actual size of a disputed plot on the ground, confirmed by a court-ordered survey, beats both the title deed and unproven claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.The size of the portion of the suit land that the plaintiff is entitled to
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a portion measuring 0.045 Ha or 0.035 Ha of the suit land
The plaintiff is entitled to 0.035 Ha as established by the survey report dated 10/7/2023, not 0.045 Ha as claimed
The land sale agreement did not indicate the measurements of the sold portion, so there was no evidence of how much land the plaintiff's mother bought. The survey of 10/7/2023, done pursuant to a court order obtained by consent of all parties, established the sizes of the respective portions each party is entitled to, and the court adopted those findings.
Whether the register should be amended to reflect the actual size of the suit land on the ground
The register should be amended to read 0.095 Ha instead of 0.05 Ha, as the resurvey confirmed the suit land is bigger on the ground than on the title deed
Prayer (a) was answered by the surveyor's report, which was the product of a resurvey confirming the actual ground size as 0.095 Ha. This finding was uncontested in substance, as even the 2nd defendant accepted the Land Registrar's report showed the correct size.
Whether the Interested Party's claim to a portion measuring 0.025 Ha stands
The Interested Party's claim to 0.025 Ha was uncontested and was granted by way of an order for transfer
The parties agreed that the Interested Party is entitled to a portion measuring 0.025 Ha, which he also bought. He testified he purchased when the plaintiff was already in occupation and that the plaintiff's developments fell within the plaintiff's portion. The court ordered the 2nd defendant to transfer that portion.
Legal principles established
#- Where a court-ordered survey establishes the actual acreage and the portions each party is entitled to, the court will adopt the surveyor's findings in amending the register and ordering transfers
Court orders
#- 1.Amendment of the register in respect of parcel No. Kisumu/Manyatta 'A'/186 to read 0.095 Ha instead of 0.05 Ha in compliance with the survey report dated 10/7/2023
- 2.The 2nd defendant to transfer to the plaintiff a portion measuring 0.035 Ha of the suit land as occupied on the ground in accordance with diagram 3 of the survey report dated 10/7/2023
- 3.The 2nd defendant to transfer to the Interested Party a portion measuring 0.025 Ha of the suit land as occupied on the ground in accordance with diagram 3 of the survey report dated 10/7/2023
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (suit concerning land); the judgment itself does not cite the provision
Relief refused
#Declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of a portion measuring 0.045 Ha and an order compelling subdivision and transfer of 0.045 Ha
The court found on the court-ordered survey that the plaintiff's portion measures 0.035 Ha and not 0.045 Ha as claimed
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the suit
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.
I find that the correct sizes of the portions of land the parties are entitled to are as set out in the surveyor’s report dated 10/7/2023.
Based on the evidence placed before the court, I find that it has been proved that the suit land's actual size is 0.095 ha, that the size of the portion of the suit land that the plaintifi is entitled to is 0.035 ha
Resurvey of the suit land parcel No. Kisumu/Manyatta ‘A’/186 having been done, an amendment of the register in terms of prayer (a) of the amended plaint, be made in compliance with the Survey report dated 10/7/2023, so that the acreage of the suit land is amended to read 0.095 Ha instead of 0.05 Ha.
The 2nd defendant do transfer to the plaintifi a portion measuring 0.035 Ha of the suit land parcel No. Kisumu Manyatta ‘A’/186 as occupied by the plaintifi on the ground in accordance with diagram 3 of the Survey report dated 10/7/2023.
Each party to bear its own costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated and signed 19th February 2026, but the record shows written submissions dated 21st July 2025 and 29th September 2025 and refers to a witness statement dated 12/4/2024 while the amended plaint is dated 6th February 2024 - internally consistent chronology is unusual but not contradictory; the date of judgment post-dates all filings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndeda v Okonyole & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 215 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1030 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Kisumu Environment and Land Court suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1030/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.