Njabasha & 2 others v Land Registrar, Kajiado & 10 others (Environment and Land Appeal E042 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4675 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court set aside a Land Registrar's boundary decision that unfairly shifted land between neighbours, ordering a fresh determination with the County Surveyor.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Land Registrar under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
The Registrar was properly seized of jurisdiction to determine the disputed boundary; the challenge to jurisdiction failed.
Sections 18 and 19 vest the Registrar with initial jurisdiction to ascertain, determine and fix uncertain boundaries through lawful survey after hearing affected parties. The Registrar undertook a site visit with the District Surveyor, considered a survey report, and the parties participated, satisfying the procedural requirements. Invocation of Sections 18(1) and (3) to conclude boundaries were unfixed was proper because a RIM shows only approximate boundaries unless fixed.
Reliance on Surveyor's Report, GPS mapping and cattle trails in preference to the RIM and beacons
Reliance on the Surveyor's Report and GPS technology was lawful, but the decision failed to rationally reconcile the cadastral evidence and placed undue weight on cattle trails; error established.
Section 19(1) requires definition of boundaries by survey, and GPS is an accepted evidentiary aid that cannot supersede statutory survey records. Cattle trails lack independent legal status as boundaries. The impugned decision did not demonstrate reconciliation between existing beacons, the RIM, survey records and the Surveyor's Report, nor explain why the straight road was displaced, rendering the decision vulnerable on appeal.
Ultra vires alteration of registered acreage and proprietary interests
The Registrar exceeded his statutory mandate insofar as the decision altered registered acreage without identifying any lawful statutory basis; that aspect cannot stand.
Sections 18 and 19 empower boundary ascertainment only, not cancellation of titles, rectification affecting ownership, redistribution of land or variation of acreage absent statutory authority. Article 40 protects property from arbitrary deprivation. The decision cited no statutory provision authorizing the acreage variation and did not show it was merely incidental to locating the true boundary, so it appeared to be an unauthorized reallocation of proprietary interests.
Whether appellate interference was warranted and the appropriate remedy
Cumulative deficiencies justified setting aside the decision, but the Court declined substitution and remitted the dispute for a fresh, fully reasoned determination.
An appellate court intervenes where a decision-maker misdirected itself on law, misapprehended evidence, or acted outside its mandate. Here the decision lacked reasoned analysis, unduly relied on cattle trails, and altered acreage without legal basis. However, the RIM depicts only approximate boundaries, so the Court could not elevate it to conclusive proof of the boundary; the proper course was remittal to the Registrar with the County Surveyor.
Legal principles established
#- A statutory tribunal can only do what the statute creating it empowers it to do; the Land Registrar's jurisdiction is confined to boundary ascertainment, not redistribution of land or alteration of registered acreage.
- Unless boundaries are fixed under Section 20, the cadastral map and Registry Index Map indicate only approximate boundaries.
- Cattle trails are not legally recognized survey monuments or cadastral boundaries and may only serve as corroborative evidence.
- Administrative decisions affecting proprietary rights must be reasoned, with a rational connection between evidence, statutory provisions and conclusions.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appeal is partially allowed
- 2.The decision of the Land Registrar, Kajiado, dated 19th January 2024 is set aside in its entirety
- 3.The dispute concerning the boundary and access road affecting the suit parcels is remitted to the Land Registrar, Kajiado County, for a fresh determination jointly with the County Surveyor in strict compliance with Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, 2012
- 4.The prayer seeking substitution of the Land Registrar's decision with an order adopting the straight access road reflected in the Registry Index Map is declined
- 5.Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Land Registrar, Kajiado (administrative determination)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the Land Registrar under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njabasha & 2 others v Land Registrar, Kajiado & 10 others (Environment and Land Appeal E042 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4675 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4675/eng@2026-07-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.