Selempo v Nchoki & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 1013 (KLR) (19 February 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 1013 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 70 OF 2020 MD MWANGI, J FEBRUARY 19, 2026 BETWEEN TOORYAN ENE SELEMPO ...................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND JOHN LONGEREU OLE NCHOKI ................................................ 1ST DEFENDANT KAJIADO DISTRICT LAND SURVEYOR .................................. 2ND DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL .................................................................. 3RD DEFENDANT RULING (On the import of the order of 25th April 2023) 1. The decision by my predecessor M N Gicheru J, of 25th April 2023, literally threw a spanner in the works in this case. Upon the close of the Plaintifi’s case, the Learned Judge stated that; “ Upon consideration of the Plaintifi’s evidence and also upon perusal of the witness statements by Julius K. Kibuba, District Surveyor dated 27/4/2015, I find that this case is essentially a boundary dispute between LR No. Kajiado/Loodariak/870 and Kajiado/ Loodariak/63. Consequently, I direct that the District Land Registrar determines the boundary dispute between the two parcels and file a report within 90 days. Parties to be present with their own private surveyors and advocates if they so wish”. 2. Subsequently, on 14th May 2024, a further order was recorded as follows; “ By consent, parties may file new evidence in reaction to the surveyor’s report dated 16/6/2023”. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1013/eng@2026-02-19 1
page 1 of 2
3. I find the above directions intriguing. As I have stated elsewhere, the decision of the Land Registrar on boundary determination is subject to an appeal before this court should any of the parties be aggrieved. By directing that the decision of the Land Registrar be filed as a report before the court, the court patently takes away the statutory right of appeal of any aggrieved party. 4. The procedure of boundary determination under Rule 40 of the Land Registration (General Regulations, 2017) is self-executing, all the way from the lodging of an application to execution of the decision. 5. The best that the court could do, having referred the dispute to the Land Registrar for determination of the boundary dispute, which I hereby do, is to stay further proceedings in this case awaiting the completion of the boundary determination exercise under Rule 40. Thereafter, the parties can come back and prosecute the claim for general damages for trespass sought in the plaint. 6. Therefore, the court hereby stays any further proceedings in this matter awaiting the completion of the boundary determination exercise under Rule 40. This case will be temporarily closed. Either party is at liberty to move the court accordingly. It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. M. D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Mr. Namena h/b for Mr. Nyarango for the Plaintifi. Mr. Kuria h/b for Mr. Taliti for the 1st Defendant. N/A by the 2nd Defendant. Court Assistant: Mpoye. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1013/eng@2026-02-19 2
page 2 of 2