An order asking police to provide security can sound administrative. But if the proposed exercise includes removing a structure from a disputed strip of land, it may depend on an ownership or boundary question that has not yet been lawfully answered.
That was the problem in Inziani v Anubi [2025] KEELC 8663 (KLR), an appeal decided by Judge E. Asati of the Environment and Land Court at Vihiga on 11 December 2025. The dispute involved neighbouring South Maragoli/Chagenda parcels in Vihiga and a pit latrine said to obstruct an access road.
The appeal succeeded. Crucially, it did not establish where the latrine actually stood or declare that either neighbour had won the underlying boundary dispute.
An interrupted exercise was not a completed determination
The original motion sought police security for restoring beacons and demarcating the boundary between parcels 1130 and 1131. It also sought security for removal of the latrine said to be on the public access road.
The trial court allowed the application in January 2025 and directed the County Land Registrar to file a report. The neighbour appealing that ruling argued that the boundary had not first been fixed through the statutory process.
The respondent relied on a county surveyor's report and argued that the necessary exercise had already taken place. The distinction between these accounts is central to the judgment, paragraphs 12-22.
The appellate court read the report differently. It recorded that boundary confirmation had been suspended because of reported hostility and that only the access road had been marked. At paragraph 20, the judge found no evidence that the boundary between the two parcels had ever been fixed.
An officer attending a site, marking something or writing a report therefore did not establish that the required boundary determination was complete.
The surveyor's work and the registrar's decision were different
Paragraphs 17-21 addressed sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act. For the boundary dispute before it, the court held that the Land Registrar had to determine the matter before the court could entertain it.
The registrar could work with a surveyor, but the relevant determination and report were to be the registrar's. This is a distinction about responsibility and completion, not an assertion that survey evidence has no value.
At paragraph 22, the judge also avoided a blanket prohibition on police assistance. Nothing barred a court from directing security for a lawful exercise. The difficulty here was that the requested assistance extended to removal of a latrine before it had been established whether the structure lay on the applicant's land, the neighbour's land or the road.
There was no eviction or demolition order supplying that missing basis. The Land Registrar was also not a party, and the parties had not referred the matter to that office in the manner discussed by the court.
What changed on appeal
Paragraphs 25-26 allowed the appeal, set aside the trial ruling dated 23 January 2025 and replaced it with dismissal of the December 2021 motion. Each party was to bear its own costs of both the appeal and the miscellaneous application.
The court recognised that the neighbours might still need to refer their dispute to the Land Registrar. The result was not permission to obstruct a lawful survey, not approval of the latrine's position and not an injunction permanently preventing road access.
For someone considering a parcel whose access depends on the disputed strip, the important unresolved fact was therefore still the legal and physical boundary.
Ask whether the exercise reached a decision
When shown a boundary report, identify who commissioned it, who participated, what work was completed and which questions the author left open. An attendance notice or an attempted survey should not be filed as though it were the final determination.
Before relying on a proposed removal exercise, ask an advocate to identify the operative authority for that action and the Land Registrar's relevant decision. A survey professional can help interpret the spatial evidence without substituting a private opinion for the statutory process.
This historical account draws on the appellate judgment; it is not an updated litigation history. The underlying application is reported through that judgment, not a separately read trial ruling. No absence of a later registrar process, appeal or order is established; present access and the latrine's location remain unverified.
For ArdhiScore screening, start with a parcel identifier and review available dated evidence, source references, confidence and unresolved questions. Screening cannot fix boundaries, authorise demolition or guarantee discovery of every local process. Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. This historical explanation is not legal advice.