Years of litigation and an old survey report did not give the court a reliable measurement of the disputed overlap in Kisanda Kilanda Enterprises v Nkendinye. The officials asked to assist could not complete the necessary ground exercise because neighbouring owners resisted it. The resulting order addressed that practical obstacle rather than declaring an unsupported acreage.
Case identity
- Case: Kisanda Kilanda Enterprises v Nkendinye & 2 others
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Decision date: 17 December 2025
- Citation: Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2023; [2025] KEELC 18283 (KLR)
- Stage: Judgment on a boundary issue remitted by the Court of Appeal.
- Primary source: Read the judgment.
The remittal did not reopen everything
The dispute concerned neighbouring parcels Cis Mara/Ololulunga/144 and 126 in Narok. Its history included tribunal proceedings, a consent for official boundary investigation and a report prepared in 2012. The December judgment records that the Court of Appeal had returned the matter for a particular task: determining the extent to which parcel 144 overlapped parcel 126. (Paragraphs 1-10.)
The parties disagreed about the scope of that task. One side argued that the court should address the wider appeal again. The judge held that the remittal constrained the proceedings to the specified overlap issue. It was not a general retrial of every historical complaint. (Paragraphs 25-35.)
This distinction matters when a party produces an appellate judgment as proof that it has won the entire land dispute. A remittal may establish what must be examined next rather than supply the final measurement itself.
The replacement officials needed their own observations
The registrar and surveyor called to court were not the authors of the old report. They sought permission to visit the land before being examined about it. Reports from the resulting visit described hostility and resistance involving adjoining landowners. The officials could not confirm necessary boundary points and said they could not reliably verify the earlier report without their own measurements. (Paragraphs 11-23.)
The court did not convert that incomplete exercise into a finding that a particular number of acres had been taken. It held that the available report and testimony did not establish the extent of the overlap it had been asked to determine. (Paragraphs 36-38.)
The obstacle also involved land outside the two principal parcel numbers. Identifying one parcel's boundary required access to points shared with adjoining properties. That is why a plan that ignores the practical involvement of neighbours can leave a legal question unresolved.
The order required a lawful official exercise
The judge directed the land registrar, assisted by the surveyor, to revisit and fix the boundaries using the available Registry Index Map. Because of the recorded resistance, sufficient security was to be supplied by the OCS Melelo Police Station and County Commissioner. Its purpose included establishing any overlap in accordance with the remittal. (Paragraphs 39-42.)
The judgment therefore should not be described as a completed survey or an award of a measured strip of land. It did not authorise a private party to force entry or move beacons independently.
A later injunction application was dismissed
The later-history search located Ole Kisua & 2 others v Kisanda Kilanda Enterprises, Civil Application E010 of 2026, [2026] KECA 1166 (KLR), decided on 12 June 2026. The full ruling was read. It concerned an application to restrain interference and the official survey pending an intended appeal. Read the later ruling, paragraphs 1 and 5-6.
The Court of Appeal at Nakuru found the proposed grounds arguable, but was not persuaded that refusal of interim protection would make a successful appeal useless. It considered the boundary exercise reversible and damages potentially adequate. It dismissed the motion with costs to Kisanda. That was not dismissal of the substantive appeal or a final measurement of the boundary. (Later ruling, paragraphs 10-14.)
Questions before relying on acreage
Has the ordered ground exercise actually occurred? Were the relevant adjoining interests involved? Does the latest report identify what was measured, what could not be accessed and what remains disputed? An advocate and qualified surveyor should review the actual orders and records.
Further appeal outcomes and compliance were not established in the search completed on 11 September 2026. ArdhiScore screening concerns accessible, source-linked indicators, not surveyed boundaries or guaranteed field access. Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Official registry and survey processes remain separate. This historical explanation is educational, not legal advice or a statement of present rights.