A survey report may refer to sophisticated equipment yet fail to explain the geographical question a court must decide. In Maitha, the disputed issue was which adjudication section contained the land. The judge found that the claimants' maps omitted the landmarks needed to connect the official notices with the report's conclusion.
Case identity
- Case: Maitha & another (Suing for and on Behalf of the Wamwanyundo Clan) v Karsan Ramji & Sons Limited & 6 others
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Decision date: 17 December 2025
- Citation: Environment and Land Case 230 of 2018; [2025] KEELC 18442 (KLR)
- Stage: Judgment after trial of an adjudication and title challenge.
- Primary source: Read the judgment.
Two adjoining sections, two accounts of the land
The claim concerned the Kilifi parcel described as Kawala A/Kadzonzo/399, with spelling variants in the judgment. The claimants said it belonged within Jimba Kaliangombe, but had wrongly been adjudicated and titled through Kawala A. They sought cancellation, fresh adjudication, injunctions and monetary relief. The company relied on its acquisition history, occupation and adjudication records. (Paragraphs 1-9.)
The court found that the two sections were adjacent and that adjudication had occurred at different times. It also recorded long use of the site by the company and its predecessor, no objection concerning this land during the Kawala A process, and the absence of the claimants from occupation. These were findings about the particular evidence, not a general exclusion of clan interests from adjudication. (Paragraph 51.)
There had also been National Land Commission proceedings. The court accepted the evidence and report of those proceedings and rejected witnesses' denials of knowledge of them. That affected its assessment of the evidence presented at trial. (Paragraphs 57-64.)
The survey had to answer a more precise question
Establishing that a parcel was processed under Kawala A did not, by itself, answer whether the land physically belonged within that section. The court expressly separated those issues. It held that the claimants bore the burden of proving their allegation that the parcel lay in Jimba Kaliangombe. (Paragraphs 64-65.)
Their surveyor was instructed to locate the parcel relative to the declared section boundaries. He relied on adjudication notices, a title copy and a topographical map, and produced his own report and map. He had not attached the Registry Index Map to the report or obtained authentication of his map from the Director of Surveys. (Paragraphs 25-27 and 68.)
The decisive criticism was not simply that a private professional had prepared the work. The maps did not identify the main features used by the notices to describe the boundaries, including starting points, waterways and transport features. Without that connection, the court could not trace the boundary described in the notice onto the map. (Paragraphs 69-70.)
The report's references to GNSS equipment did not supply the missing explanation. The judge found the conclusions unsupported by maps that primarily showed parcel numbers rather than the notice landmarks. The alleged wrong-section adjudication was therefore not proved. (Paragraphs 71-73.)
The result was dismissal, not a new adjudication
The court also rejected the pleaded fraud allegations. Several depended on proving the land was in the other section, and the court found no separate evidence of the alleged collusion. It held the adjudication and resulting registration lawful on the evidence before it. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants. No damages or fresh adjudication were ordered. (Paragraphs 76-88.)
The earlier 24 May 2024 Court of Appeal ruling, [2024] KECA 563 (KLR), found an arguable intended appeal about a defence amendment and counterclaim, but refused to stay the ongoing trial and dismissed the motion with costs. It was not an appeal from the later merits judgment. Read the earlier ruling, paragraphs 19-20 and 27-31.
A later order addressed the restriction
In Baya & another v Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd & 3 others, [2026] KEELC 2904 (KLR), the ELC at Malindi allowed removal of the same parcel's inhibition/restriction and an official search confirming removal, with application costs against the plaintiffs. It recorded their assertion of an appeal, but noted that this was the company's removal application, not their stay application. Read the 13 May 2026 ruling, paragraphs 1-7.
The later report uses E230/2018 and the original Baya caption. Its affidavit attribution conflicts with the trial's recorded death and substitution. That source anomaly remains unresolved; neither decision proves registry implementation or the appeal's present status.
Questions for a technical report
Can a reader follow each relevant official landmark onto the map? Does the report explain its source records, instructions and unresolved limitations? Have an advocate and qualified surveyor agreed on the precise issue the evidence must answer?
The history search was completed on 11 September 2026; no later merits outcome was verified. ArdhiScore screening concerns accessible, source-linked indicators, not certification of section boundaries or the completeness of survey work. Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Official records and professional advice remain separate. This historical account is educational, not legal advice.