Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedMRG ELCA NO E006 OF 2025· [2026] KEELC 1720 (KLR)

Mbui v Land Registrar, Murang’a & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1720 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 March 2026
MGM.N. Gicheru
1,508 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cancelled a land registrar's boundary ruling because it changed land sizes without giving written reasons — titles and title deed acreages won.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, registered owner of L.R. No. Loc.11/Muchungucha/1886 measuring 1.13 Ha, appealed against a ruling of the Land Registrar (1st Respondent) dated 22-1-2025, made at the instance of the 2nd Respondent, owner of the adjacent parcel No. 265. The Registrar's determination found encroachment by the Appellant's parcel and resulted in a reduction of the Appellant's land by about 0.1804 hectares and an increase in the 2nd Respondent's parcel by 0.0526 of an acre. The Appellant engaged a licensed surveyor who identified discrepancies: the parent parcel No. 349 would be reduced below its titled size, and parcel No. 265 would exceed its titled acreage of 4.1 acres. The appeal raised eight grounds, contending that the Registrar failed to ascertain actual acreages per the title deeds, ignored boundary markers and historical documentation, conducted no proper ground verification, and contravened Sections 15, 18 and 20 of the Land Registration Act. The court heard the Principal Surveyor from the Ministry of Lands, Murang'a, on summons, who confirmed the discrepancies, agreed that boundaries of parcels 1886, 1887, 1143 and 1509 required re-establishment, and conceded the size changes. On three agreed issues, the court held the Registrar erred in reducing the Appellant's land and enlarging the 2nd Respondent's without justification, and that the absence of reasons violated Article 47(2) of the Constitution, which requires written reasons where rights are adversely affected. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the ruling of 22-1-2025 and all consequential orders, directed a fresh determination of the boundary reflecting the sizes in the respective title deeds, and awarded costs to the Appellant, borne by the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Error in the Registrar's boundary determination altering parcel sizes

Holding

The Registrar erred in reducing the Appellant's parcel No. 1886 and increasing the 2nd Respondent's parcel No. 265 without justification.

Reasoning

The court found that the registrar had the opportunity to ensure neither party lost land but instead made the Appellant lose part of his land. No justification was offered in the ruling dated 22-1-2025 for the reduction and increment in the respective sizes of the two parcels, and the absence of reasons grounded the finding of error.

p. 4
02

Procedural compliance and duty to give reasons under Article 47(2) of the Constitution

Holding

The absence of reasons renders the Registrar's decision unjustifiable under any known law, breaching the constitutional requirement of written reasons.

Reasoning

The court held that if any law permitted the reduction of the Appellant's land, it would have been cited in the ruling. Article 47(2) of the Constitution requires written reasons where a person's rights are adversely affected; none were given for the reduction of the Appellant's parcel size, so the decision could not stand.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A Land Registrar's decision adversely affecting a party's land must be supported by written reasons, failing which it cannot be justified under any known law.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appellant's appeal dated 11-2-2025 is allowed.
  2. 2.The ruling of the 1st Respondent dated 22-1-2025 and all consequential orders are set aside and the dispute to be determined afresh and the correct boundary reflecting the correct size of each parcel as contained in the respective title deeds to be determined and maintained.
  3. 3.The costs of this appeal to be borne by the Respondents.
On appeal from
Land Registrar (boundary determination under the Land Registration Act)
Ruling dated 22-1-2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Regulation 40 paragraph 6 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017 - appeal from the decision of the Land Registrar

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbui v Land Registrar, Murang’a & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1720 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MRG ELCA NO E006 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1720/eng@2026-03-23

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