Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in extract· [2026] KEELC 3245 (KLR)

Lichoti (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Enock Lichoti Murumwa - Deceased) v Lucinde & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3245 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 May 2026
1,743 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's land court cannot decide general boundary disputes directly—you must first take your case to the Land Registrar before any judge will hear it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kakamega (A. Nyukuri, J) addressed a jurisdictional question raised by the court on 20th February 2025, directing parties to file submissions. The plaintiff's plaint dated 15th October 2024 complained that his parcels Isukha/Virembe/1716-1721 (previously 805) border the 1st defendant's parcel Isukha/Virembe/1576 with a five-metre road separating them. He sought cancellation of a survey process conducted on 20th July 2024, an order for resurvey to ascertain the access road, and a permanent injunction against trespass. The plaintiff, relying on Article 162(2)(b), section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 86 of the Land Registration Act, argued the suit challenged a decision of the Land Registrar and was not a boundary dispute. The 1st defendant, relying on sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act and George Kamau Macharia v Dexka Limited, submitted the dispute was a general boundary dispute for the Land Registrar in the first instance. The court held it lacked original jurisdiction over general boundary disputes under section 18 and Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, its jurisdiction being invoked only on appeal from the Registrar's decision. Section 86 was inapplicable as no Registrar's decision was before the court. The suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction, with each party bearing its own costs because the jurisdictional issue was raised suo motu.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute

Holding

The suit is a general boundary dispute that must first be determined by the Land Registrar under section 18 of the Land Registration Act and Regulation 40 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations; the court lacks original jurisdiction and the suit is struck out

Reasoning

The plaintiff's complaint concerned the location of boundaries between two registered parcels separated by an access road. Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act bars the court from entertaining boundary disputes unless the boundaries have been determined under that section. Regulation 40 provides the procedure before the Registrar, with a right of appeal to the court within thirty days. No decision of the Land Registrar was placed before the court, and section 86 was inapplicable.

p. 3
02

Whether section 86 of the Land Registration Act confers jurisdiction

Holding

Section 86 was misplaced because the suit does not challenge any decision of the Land Registrar and seeks no relief envisaged under that section

Reasoning

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit challenged a decision of the Land Registrar. The court held the dispute was in substance a boundary dispute falling under section 18, not section 86, and that no decision of the Registrar had been placed before the court for review. The form of the pleading could not confer jurisdiction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Environment and Land Court has no original jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes concerning general boundaries; such disputes must first be determined by the Land Registrar, and the court's jurisdiction is invoked only on appeal from the Registrar's decision
  • Jurisdiction flows from the constitution or statute and a court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction it does not have

Court orders

#
  1. 1.This suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution as read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lichoti (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Enock Lichoti Murumwa - Deceased) v Lucinde & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3245 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3245/eng@2026-05-20

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