THE INSTITUTION OF SURVEYORS OF KENYA (ISK)POSITION ON RIPARIAN RESERVE DEMARCATION, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND COMPENSATION

By Bruno Aero Family Media Staff Writer  Nairobi, 5th May 2026

The Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (ISK) has taken note of the recent Public Notice and related communications issued by the Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development concerning the demarcation, harmonization, and enforcement of riparian reserves along the Nairobi Rivers Corridor

 Under the Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project. We have also considered recent remarks by Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja regarding the demolition of structures on alleged riparian land.

ISK unequivocally supports the Government’s efforts to protect water bodies, restore riparian ecosystems, mitigate flooding, and promote sustainable environmental management in line with the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and national environmental objectives. These interventions are both timely and necessary.

However, ISK observes that effective management of riparian reserves in Kenya has been hindered by several longstanding challenges. These include the multiplicity of laws governing riparian areas, inconsistent definitions, and varying methods of measurement. As a result, there has been widespread encroachment on riparian reserves through unregulated developments and settlements.

Recent initiatives by both the Government and non-state actors to reclaim riparian reserves and wetlands have intensified enforcement actions, including demolition of structures. These actions have led to economic losses and triggered mixed reactions from the public, civil society, and professionals—largely due to differing interpretations of the extent and width of riparian reserves.

Key challenges include:

Inconsistent measurement of riparian reserves across rivers, lakes, dams, streams, and sea fronts;

Variations in reference points used (e.g., centreline, riverbank, high water mark, contours, or spring source);

Lack of a coordinated and systematic framework for managing riparian reserves;

Inadequate assessment of ecological conditions and riparian health;

Conflicting sectoral laws, regulations, and guidelines;

Absence of a comprehensive national policy on riparian reserve management.

As the national professional body responsible for upholding standards in land surveying, boundary determination, valuation, and land governance, ISK finds it necessary to clarify critical legal, technical, and property rights concerns arising from the current enforcement approach.

1. Legal Status of Riparian Reserves

ISK notes a widespread misconception that riparian reserves automatically constitute public land. Articles 62(i), (j), (k), and (l) of the Constitution of Kenya do not support arbitrary deprivation of private property.

Riparian reserves should be treated similarly to other reserves—such as road or game reserves—where land ownership may remain private, but land use is subject to regulation. The term “riparian land” is therefore misleading and should be discontinued.

While riparian reserves are typically measured from the high water mark, this does not preclude such land from being privately owned. In many cases, land boundaries along rivers are defined by the centreline, particularly for smaller rivers and tributaries. The reserve is then established through planning regulations.

ISK emphasizes that riparian reserve management is fundamentally about land use control and access, as provided under Article 66 of the Constitution—not automatic land acquisition. Any law or action that deprives individuals of property rights without due process is unconstitutional.

Additionally, rivers are dynamic and may change course over time. This natural variability must be considered in defining riparian reserves.

Beyond enforcement, ISK urges attention to broader causes of flooding and environmental degradation, including:

Dumping of waste that blocks waterways;

Clearing of vegetation along riverbanks;

Poor adherence to planning and zoning regulations;

Sudden release of water from private dams;

Overdevelopment without proper drainage planning.

2. Retroactivity and Compensation

A major concern arises in cases where land was lawfully acquired and developed under previous legal frameworks. Many properties were surveyed, allocated, and developed in good faith, with boundaries defined according to the laws and professional standards applicable at the time.

ISK stresses that the sanctity of title deeds must be respected. Where land adjoining water bodies was legally allocated, a fair and negotiated approach should be adopted rather than abrupt demolitions.

For instance, some areas—such as parts of Parklands—were registered before independence, at a time when riparian reserves were not formally defined. Applying current standards retroactively in such cases risks creating legal uncertainty and injustice.

a) Lawful Acquisition and Development

A valid title deed was issued based on an approved survey plan;

Development approvals were lawfully granted (or development predates current laws); and

The land was not designated as riparian reserve at the time,

then any subsequent redefinition or expansion of riparian boundaries cannot be applied retroactively without due process.

In such cases, any loss of land or restriction of its use constitutes compulsory acquisition. Under Article 40(3) of the Constitution and the Land Act, 2012, the State must:

Conduct professional valuation;

Issue statutory notices;

Gazette the intended acquisition; and

Provide prompt, just, and full compensation prior to demolition or repossession.

b) Unlawful or Fraudulent Allocations

ISK distinguishes the above from cases involving:

Illegal land allocation;

Fraudulent acquisition; or

Developments undertaken without approvals.

Such properties do not qualify for constitutional protection and may be subject to enforcement action without compensation, provided due process is followed.

3. Harmonization, Technical Clarity, and Due Process

ISK notes that ongoing disputes and public dissatisfaction largely stem from inconsistent legal definitions, evolving policy interpretations, and lack of harmonized technical standards.

To address this, ISK calls for action

a) Harmonization of Standards

The Government should urgently standardize:

Riparian setback distances (e.g., 6m, 30m, or variable buffers);

Definitions of high and low water marks;

Treatment of seasonal rivers, canalized rivers, and rural waterways.

b) Clear Policy Framework

A unified national policy should be developed to guide the measurement, management, and use of riparian reserves.

c) Professional and Scientific Approach

Riparian reserve determination should be grounded in:

Surveying best practices;

Environmental assessments;

Hydrological and ecological data.

d) Due Process and Stakeholder Engagement

All enforcement actions must adhere to constitutional principles, including:

Transparency;

Public participation;

Fair administrative action; and

Respect for property rights.

Conclusion

ISK reiterates its support for environmental conservation and sustainable land management. However, these goals must be pursued within the framework of the Constitution, with due regard for property rights, legal certainty, and fairness.

A balanced approach—grounded in law, science, and professional standards—is essential to achieving both environmental protection and social justice.