Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Kisumu (Suing on behalf of St Francis Riwo Church) v Aoko (Land Case E033 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3298 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court ordered an official survey to settle a land trespass claim, ruling that objections without evidence or proper maps cannot block it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the preliminary objection on jurisdiction should be upheld
- 2.Whether an order for a joint survey of the suit parcel should issue
- 3.Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the survey is conducted
- 4.Whether the respondent's objection that no map is available is sustainable
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on jurisdiction was well founded
The preliminary objection was dismissed because the cause of action in the plaint is trespass to land, which the court can entertain, and the objection was not discernible from the pleadings.
The court examined the plaint dated 11th November 2024 and found nothing to suggest the parties own parcels sharing a common boundary. The disclosed cause of action was trespass to land, with the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction and eviction. Although a preliminary objection on jurisdiction is a pure point of law, this one did not flow from the pleadings filed, so it failed.
Whether the survey should be ordered
The application for a court-directed survey was allowed as the respondent showed no prejudice from the survey.
The applicant contended the respondent was hesitant and hostile to the survey. The respondent's objection was that no map was available for the area. The court found no prejudice demonstrated, held the map objection unsustainable since a copy could be obtained from Survey of Kenya, and directed the County Surveyor, Kisumu, to conduct the survey and report within 60 days.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection raising jurisdiction must flow or be discernible from the pleadings as filed
- A party's objection that no map exists for a survey is not a sustainable ground where the map can be obtained from Survey of Kenya
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed
- 2.The County Surveyor, Kisumu, is directed to visit the suit land parcel No. LR No.246224, also referred to as Kisumu/Municipality Plan No. N9/93/15 and survey the same to establish whether or not the Respondent has trespassed thereon and file a report in court within 60 days
- 3.Each party is at liberty to attend the exercise with an independent surveyor of its own choice
- 4.The Plaintiff shall bear the cost of the survey exercise
- 5.The Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Gita Police Station, shall provide security during the survey exercise
- 6.Each party shall bear its own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 3 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (suit pending before the court; original jurisdiction over trespass to land claim)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application against the Respondent
Each party ordered to bear its own costs of the application
Survey of LR No.24624 through a joint survey by the parties and the Kisumu/District Surveyor's office as prayed
The court instead directed the County Surveyor, Kisumu, to conduct the survey and file a report
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the application; the Plaintiff shall bear the cost of the survey exercise.
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 application has merit and allow it as follows:
The preliminary objection raised, although raising the issue of jurisdiction, which is a pure point of law, is not one that flows or is discernible from the pleadings so far filed.
The County Surveyor, Kisumu, is hereby directed to visit the suit land parcel No. LR No.246224, also referred to as Kisumu/municipality Plan No. N9/93/15 and survey the same to establish whether or not the Respondent has trespassed there onto and file a report in court within 60 days hereof.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
The Oficer Commanding Station (OCS), Gita Police Station, shall provide security during the survey exercise.
Issues in the judgment
#The parcel number is cited inconsistently as LR NO.24624 in the application but LR No.246224 in the court's orders
The OCS police station is named Kisumu East Police Station in the application but Gita Police Station in the final orders
Dates appear internally anomalous: the Replying Affidavit is sworn on 15th February, 2026 while the ruling is dated 28th May, 2026 in a 2025 application; the year dates may be typographical
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Kisumu (Suing on behalf of St Francis Riwo Church) v Aoko (Land Case E033 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3298 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 7th November, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3298/eng@2026-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.