The Environment and Land Court in Meru has overturned a lower court ruling that ordered a landowner to reopen an alleged access road through her property, holding that private land cannot be converted into a public road without credible evidence of a legally established right of way.
In the judgment delivered on July 27, the appellate court held that there was no evidence proving that the disputed access road existed and faulted the trial court for disregarding expert evidence from government survey officials.
The case arose from a long-running land dispute in which a neighboring landowner claimed that the appellant had blocked the only access road serving her parcel of land. She also accused land officials of colluding to alter official survey records and remove the road from government maps.
The trial court had accepted those claims and ordered that the alleged road be reopened.
However, after reviewing the evidence presented before the magistrate’s court, the Environment and Land Court found that the decision could not stand because it was not supported by the facts on record.
The appellate court noted that although the respondent alleged that a public access road had existed for years, she failed to produce evidence showing that the road was officially planned, surveyed or recorded in government land records.
Also Read: Court Gives Way Forward on New Retirement Age for University Lecturers
Instead, the court found that the evidence presented by both the County Surveyor and an independent surveyor engaged by the respondent pointed to the same conclusion that no access road existed where the respondent claimed it did.
The judges also rejected allegations that land officials had fraudulently altered survey maps.
According to the court, fraud is a serious allegation that must be proved through clear and convincing evidence. In this case, however, no documentary or expert evidence was produced to demonstrate that the official Registry Index Maps had been interfered with or unlawfully amended.
Central to the appeal was a sketch map produced during the proceedings, which the trial court relied on in reaching its decision.
Court Faults Lower Court for Ignoring Expert Survey Evidence
The Environment and Land Court found that the sketch map relied on by the trial court had not been authenticated or linked to official survey records and faulted the magistrate for giving it greater weight than expert reports prepared by qualified survey officers.
Also Read: Court Orders Permanent Jobs for Workers Kept on Casual Terms for Years
The court further noted that reports by both the County Surveyor and the respondent’s surveyor confirmed there was no access road passing through the appellant’s land, weakening claims that a public road had been blocked.
The judges further observed that no evidence was presented to show that the respondent’s parcel had been rendered inaccessible.
Although she maintained that the disputed route was the only means of accessing her property, the court found that this assertion was not supported by evidence before the trial court.
The court stressed that judicial decisions must be grounded on evidence rather than suspicion or sympathy.
It held that courts cannot interfere with a person’s property rights merely because allegations have been made, particularly where those allegations are contradicted by expert evidence.
The judges further emphasized that where parties allege fraud against public officers, the law requires those allegations to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Having found that the respondent failed to discharge that burden, the court concluded that the lower court had erred in granting orders affecting the appellant’s land.
Consequently, the Environment and Land Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court in Maua and dismissed the original suit.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
