Skyline Holdings Ltd v Wanyamва & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5307 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Nyeri ruled a landowner can prove a public access road using a Registry Index Map and government surveyor evidence, ordering the blocked road reopened within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant discharged the burden of proving the existence and blockage of a 9-metre public access road
Yes - the expert evidence of the County Director of Survey and the Land Registrar, which referenced the Registry Index Map, was sufficient and uncontradicted proof of the access road and its encroachment and blockage.
The Appellant relied on the survey report of Daniel Maina Mukiri, Director of Land & Surveys, and on the Land Registrar's testimony, both confirming a 9-metre access road shown on the Registry Index Map and blocked by the 1st Respondent's structures. The Registry Index Map is the index map component of Kenya's cadastral system under Section 15 of the Land Registration Act. The Respondents brought no contrary evidence, and there was no proper and cogent basis to reject the government expert evidence. The Trial Court therefore erred in requiring proof beyond the Registry Index Map.
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's suit for failure to discharge the burden of proof
Yes - the Trial Court erred and the appeal was allowed with the lower court's findings substituted with orders opening the road and a permanent injunction.
Applying the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities as articulated in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira, and the authority that expert opinions are given proper respect where there is no contrary opinion, the court found the Appellant proved his case. The court also invoked authority that blocking historically recognised public roads without due process violates principles of accountability and inclusivity, and that a proprietor has no right to deal with a public access road inconsistently with its purpose.
Whether the Appellant had a cause of action against the 2nd Respondent
No - the 2nd Respondent had transferred and/or assigned its lease over LR Aguthi/Gatitu/3090 to ATC Kenya Operations Limited and was no longer the lessee, so the suit against it was struck out.
The evidence of Nelson Mogaka, Legal Manager of the 2nd Respondent, was that on 13th August 2019 the 2nd Respondent transferred and/or assigned its lease over LR Aguthi/Gatitu/3090 to ATC Kenya Operations Limited and was no longer in occupation or use of the property. It therefore could not have encroached on the access road or blocked the Appellant's property, and no cause of action lay against it.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence on the record and determine whether the conclusions reached by the trial court are to stand.
- The standard of proof in civil claims is the balance of probabilities.
- A public access road is an implied and express right and privilege appurtenant to land, intended for the benefit of the proprietor and the public, and its use ought not to be restricted.
Court orders
#- 1.An order that the encroachment and blocking of the 9-metre access road by the 1st Respondent are illegal and the said closure be opened forthwith (in any event within 30 days of the judgment)
- 2.Failure to open the road within 30 days shall entitle the Appellant to engage licensed auctioneers to demolish, unblock and remove all materials blocking the access road
- 3.The Government County Surveyor and Land Registrar to confirm the extent of encroachment on the site and identify which structures the 1st and 3rd Respondents ought to remove to restore the access road, within 30 days of the judgment
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from building, erecting, fencing or putting up any other structures to block the 9-metre access road bordering LR. NO. AGUTHI/GATITU/849
- 5.The suit against the 2nd Respondent struck out with costs to be borne by the 1st Respondent
- 6.Costs of the appeal and of the court below to be borne by the 1st Respondent with interest at court rates
- On appeal from
- Nyeri Chief Magistrate's Court, Environment and Land Court
- Case Number 7 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Environment and Land Court (Environment and Land Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Skyline Holdings Ltd v Wanyamва & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5307 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA NO. E026 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5307/eng@2026-08-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.