By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 5 June 2026 - Kenya's controversial campaign to reclaim riparian land has run into fresh professional resistance, with the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya (ISK) warning that the government's demolition drive risks colliding with constitutional property rights and exposing taxpayers to billions of shillings in compensation claims.
In a strongly worded statement, ISK backed efforts to restore rivers, protect wetlands and mitigate flooding but challenged what it termed widespread misconceptions surrounding riparian reserves and private land ownership.
The intervention places the country's leading land professionals at the centre of a growing dispute involving the National Government, Nairobi County, property owners and environmental agencies.
The statement comes days after renewed remarks by Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja on planned demolitions targeting structures said to be encroaching on river corridors under the Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project.
However, ISK argues that the debate is far more complex than the public has been led to believe.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental legal question: can the State retrospectively redefine riparian boundaries and demolish developments that were lawfully approved decades earlier?
According to ISK, the answer is no.
The professional body argues that many parcels bordering rivers were legally surveyed, allocated and registered under laws that existed at the time. In some cases, especially in older Nairobi neighbourhoods such as Parklands, land titles predate independence and were issued without the riparian restrictions now being invoked.
That position potentially shifts the debate from environmental enforcement to compulsory acquisition.
Under Kenya's Constitution, private property cannot be taken without due process and prompt compensation.
ISK insists that where landowners acquired titles legally and developed their properties in good faith, any subsequent loss arising from revised riparian boundaries amounts to compulsory acquisition and should attract full compensation.
The warning could have enormous financial implications.
If upheld by the courts, the State may be required to undertake valuations, issue gazette notices and compensate affected owners before carrying out demolitions. Such a scenario would significantly increase the cost of river restoration projects.
More from Kenya
Yet the surveyors are equally clear that illegally acquired land should receive no protection.
ISK draws a distinction between genuine title holders and individuals who obtained land through fraud, irregular allocation or blatant disregard of planning laws. Such developments, it says, may be removed without compensation provided due process is followed.
Beyond compensation, the institution identifies a deeper governance problem.
Kenya lacks a harmonised legal framework defining riparian reserves. Different laws prescribe different measurements, reference points and enforcement standards. Environmental regulators, water agencies, planners and surveyors often apply conflicting interpretations.
The result has been years of uncertainty, litigation and inconsistent enforcement.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the statement is its argument that flooding cannot be blamed solely on riparian encroachment. Poor drainage systems, uncontrolled urban development, blocked waterways, destruction of vegetation and weak planning enforcement are cited as equally important causes.
This shifts the conversation from demolition politics to urban planning failure.
Ultimately, the surveyors are calling for a national reset. They want harmonised laws, scientific mapping, comprehensive surveys and a legally defensible framework that balances environmental protection with constitutional rights.
The message is unmistakable. Saving Kenya's rivers is necessary. But reclaiming them without legal clarity, technical precision and respect for property rights could create a new crisis even as the country attempts to solve another.
This version frames the statement as a major policy and governance story rather than a routine press release, highlighting the legal, economic and political consequences of the riparian land debate.