Surveyors Back Riparian Protection but Demand Clarity on Property Rights and Compensation
Officials from the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya address the media in Nairobi on May 5, 2026, outlining their position on riparian reserve demarcation, property rights, and compensation amid ongoing demolitions along river corridors.
The Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (ISK) has supported government efforts to reclaim and protect riparian reserves, but raised concerns over legal ambiguities, property rights, and compensation following recent demolitions along Nairobi river corridors.
In a press statement issued in Nairobi on May 5, 2026, ISK said it had taken note of a public notice by the Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development on the demarcation and enforcement of riparian reserves under the Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project. The body also referenced recent remarks by Johnson Sakaja regarding the demolition of structures on riparian land.
ISK welcomed the government’s initiative, saying it aligns with environmental protection goals, including restoration of ecosystems, mitigation of flooding, and sustainable management of water resources as envisioned in the Constitution.
However, the institution warned that management of riparian reserves remains complicated due to multiple laws, inconsistent definitions, and varied interpretations of boundaries. According to ISK, these gaps have contributed to encroachment and unregulated developments on riparian land.
The surveyors noted that ongoing demolitions of structures built along riparian zones have resulted in economic losses and sparked mixed reactions among the public, professionals, and civil society. The confusion, they said, stems from inconsistencies in determining the width and extent of riparian reserves, varying reference points such as riverbanks or high-water marks, and lack of coordinated frameworks.
ISK further pointed to the absence of a comprehensive national policy governing the measurement, use, and management of riparian reserves, as well as limited ecological assessments of such areas.
On the legal status of riparian land, ISK clarified that riparian reserves should not automatically be treated as public land. The institution argued that the Constitution does not support arbitrary deprivation of property, noting that such reserves should be handled similarly to other protected areas like road or game reserves.
It emphasized that while riparian reserves are defined from the high-water mark, the land itself can still be privately owned. As such, the issue revolves around regulated use and access rather than outright ownership.
The institution cautioned that any law or enforcement action that leads to deprivation of property rights without due process would be unconstitutional. It also highlighted the need to consider natural changes in river courses when defining riparian boundaries.
On flooding, ISK attributed recent cases not only to encroachment but also to poor waste management, destruction of vegetation cover, weak enforcement of planning regulations, and inadequate drainage systems. It urged authorities to address these broader issues alongside riparian enforcement.
A key concern raised was the treatment of landowners who acquired and developed property legally under previous laws. ISK stressed that such properties should not be subjected to retroactive enforcement without due process.
The institution maintained that valid title deeds and approved survey plans must be respected. Where land was legally allocated and developed before current regulations, ISK said the government should adopt a negotiated approach instead of demolitions.
In cases where land must be repossessed, ISK insisted that the process should follow constitutional provisions on compulsory acquisition, including valuation, issuance of notices, gazettement, and prompt compensation.
However, the body distinguished such cases from illegally or fraudulently acquired land, stating that unlawful developments do not qualify for constitutional protection and may be demolished in accordance with the law.
To address the ongoing disputes, ISK called for urgent harmonization of laws governing riparian reserves, including standardizing setback distances, definitions of water marks, and treatment of different types of water bodies.
It also urged strict adherence to due process, including public participation, issuance of adequate notices, and respect for the right to fair administrative action.
Among its recommendations, ISK proposed reforms to the Survey Act, alignment of sectoral laws, development of clear guidelines, and preparation of comprehensive boundary plans for riparian areas. The institution also called for mapping and delineation of reserves to be handled by qualified surveyors under the Director of Surveys.
On flood mitigation, ISK recommended enhanced mapping using geospatial technologies, improved drainage systems, enforcement of development regulations, and use of historical data to guide planning. It also urged regular maintenance of drainage systems and stricter penalties for waste dumping.
Additionally, the surveyors emphasized the need for proper urban planning, including maintaining a balance between built-up and natural surfaces to allow water absorption.
ISK reaffirmed its commitment to work with government agencies, county governments, and communities to ensure that riparian management is technically sound, legally compliant, and socially fair.
The institution said environmental protection efforts must be balanced with respect for property rights, professional standards, and public trust in land administration systems.
