Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KEELC 3359 (KLR)

Mwanzi & another (Both trading as "Kayole Hekima Academy Educational Centre") v Mwangi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 126 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 3359 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 June 2026
COChristine Ochieng
2,286 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Christine Ochieng, J) determines a Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 by the 4th and 5th Defendants in a long-running land suit. They sought expungement of a site visit report dated 11th November 2025 prepared by Hon. Vincent Kiplagat, Deputy Registrar, a declaration of its inadmissibility, or in the alternative a fresh site visit with a licensed surveyor. They argued the report was biased, exceeded the court's directive by making boundary and encroachment findings without professional survey expertise, and introduced new evidence. The Plaintiffs opposed, noting all parties and advocates attended the site visit without protest, and that the report recorded ordinary observations. The 3rd Defendant maintained that absence of a surveyor goes to weight, not admissibility, and that expungement would cause further delay in a matter pending over fifteen years. The court held it possesses power to direct locus visits under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and applied guidelines from Sojanm Springfields and the Tanzanian decision in Mantheakis. Finding that all parties were represented and heard, that no protest was raised, and that the report reflected ordinary observation rather than technical survey findings, the court declared the report admissible, declined to expunge it or order a fresh visit, disallowed the application, and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the site visit report should be expunged for want of a licensed surveyor and alleged bias

Holding

The application fails; the report is admissible. All parties were represented and granted audience, no protest was made at the site visit, and the report reflects ordinary observation rather than scientific or technical findings.

Reasoning

The court traced its power to direct a locus visit to Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and adopted the guidelines in Kimoni Dimitri Mantheakis v Ally Azim Dewji as restated by the Court of Appeal in Sojanm Springfields. All parties and advocates were present and no objection to the methodology was raised. Allegations of assumption of boundary measurements were not borne out by the report. Concerns about the absence of a licensed surveyor go to probative weight, not admissibility.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Observations made during a locus in quo visit do not replace trial evidence but aid the Court in understanding matters in controversy
  • Recording the existence, location and visible developments on disputed land is a matter of ordinary observation not requiring specialized survey expertise; absence of a surveyor goes to weight, not admissibility
  • A Deputy Registrar conducting a site visit is expected to report observations and conclusions including boundaries as pointed out by the parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 18th February 2026 by the 4th and 5th Defendants is unmerited and disallowed
  2. 2.The site visit report filed by the Deputy Registrar is admissible and shall remain on the record; it shall not be expunged
  3. 3.No fresh site visit shall be conducted with the assistance of a licensed surveyor
  4. 4.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 31 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwanzi & another (Both trading as "Kayole Hekima Academy Educational Centre") v Mwangi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 126 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 3359 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3359/eng@2026-06-04

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