Sasita v. Kiguku (PC) Civ. App. 272-M-69; 29/1/70; Bramble J.

Sasita v. Kiguku (PC) Civ. App. 272-M-69; 29/1/70; Bramble J.

There was a boundary dispute between the parties, the owners of adjoining shambas, in 1956. At first the Village Development Committee fixed a boundary mark which favoured the appellant whereupon the respondent approached the Chief who altered the boundary to increase the Respondent’s land. From 1956 to 1968 the respondent took no action and permitted the appellant to cultivate the dispute portion of land. There was a stream passing through the area in dispute but it was never mentioned when the first two boundaries were fixed. However, those marks were on the same side as the present marks showing that the stream had always flowed through the appellant’s land and was never a dividing line between adjacent shambas.

            Held: (1) “For more than twelve years the respondent appeared satisfied with the boundary and seemed to have been inspired to take action by finding that his land is now too small for his needs. The finding by the lower courts that the boundary is the river because it is a natural boundary is totally against the weight of the evidence. The fact that the appellant has a greater area of land than the respondent is in no way relevant to the issue and cannot be a factor to influence the final decision.” (2) Appeal allowed.