Ochieng v Were (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4391 (KLR) (11 June 2025) (Judgment)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 4391
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 4391 (KLR)
- Decided
- 11 June 2025
Summary at a glance
TypeEnvironment and Land AppealPostureAppeal from a first-instance decisionCoramHON. DR. iur NYAGAKA
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent. The trial court's finding that the dispute was a boundary dispute which falls outside the mandate of the trial court is upheld.
Facts
The appellant, Peter Ochieng, claimed that the respondent, Mercy Were, had constructed a septic pit on an access road, blocking the entrance to his parcels of land. The respondent countered that the dispute was a boundary dispute, which falls outside the mandate of the trial court.
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit
- Which party should bear the costs of the appeal
Reasoning
The court re-evaluated the evidence and found that the dispute was a boundary dispute, which should have been addressed by the Land Registrar under section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act. The court dismissed the suit as the boundaries had not been determined in accordance with the Act.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Authorities cited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…