Eliud Kimani Mwangi v District Surveyor Laikipia [2014] KEELC 658 (KLR)

Facts

The applicant claims to be the proprietor of land parcel LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 and seeks to redefine the boundary with land parcel LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/8022 due to encroachment. The Respondent argues that the boundary dispute was previously determined by the Land Registrar.

Issues

1. Has the current survey status for LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 been maintained in accordance with the existing Registry Index Map?
2. If question (a) is in affirmative, do the physical boundaries for land parcels LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 and 8022 reflect the status as should be in the Registry Index Map?
3. If question (a) is not in affirmative, do the physical boundaries for land parcels LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 vis-a-vis the Registry Index Map?
4. Does land parcel No. LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 have any recognized fixed boundaries?
5. If question (d) is not in affirmative, is the Respondent under statutory duty to determine fixed boundary position and status of land parcel No. LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 in accordance with the Registry Index Map and/or through use of other qualified methods?
6. Do common boundaries of land parcel NO. LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/8022 encroach into land parcel NO. LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375 and to what extent?
7. If land parcel number LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/8022 belonging to interested party has partly or fully encroached and/or fully swallowed land parcel No. LAIKIPIA/NYAHURURU/375, what is the statutory duty of Respondent in consonance with part II of the Registered Land Act?
8. Who should shoulder costs of this summons?

Reasoning

The court found that the boundary dispute between the applicant and interested party had been previously determined by the Land Registrar and that the application to redefine the boundary was not tenable in law.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed