Stephen Muchiri & 8 others v Amu Ranch Co-operative Society & 2 others [2017] KEELC 1445 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed Lamu squatters' injunction bid, confirming that settling squatters on private land is the National Land Commission's job, not the owner's.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners established a prima facie case warranting an interim injunction
No prima facie case was established because the Petitioners did not challenge the 1st Respondent's title under Article 40(6) of the Constitution or Section 80 of the Land Registration Act.
It was not in dispute that the 1st Respondent was the registered proprietor of L.R. No. 26867, the grant having been registered on 30th August 2005. Article 40(1) protects the right to own property, which can only be taken away if the property was unlawfully acquired. The Petitioners did not seek revocation of the title on the grounds in Article 40(6) or Section 80 of the Land Registration Act and appeared not to be challenging the title at all, so no prima facie case with chances of success existed.
Which body bears the statutory duty to settle squatters
The National Land Commission, on behalf of the national and county governments, is mandated under Section 134 of the Land Act to implement settlement programmes, not the 1st Respondent.
Section 134 of the Land Act places settlement programmes with the Commission, which must reserve public land for settlement and, where public land is unavailable, purchase private land. The NLC's 2014 report recommended 'regularize title' and 'consider accommodating the many squatters', but the court found it unclear what the Commission meant by 'consider accommodating' when the settlement mandate lies with the Commission itself.
The mandate to review grants of public land
Article 68 of the Constitution and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act mandate the 2nd Respondent to review all grants or dispositions of public land to establish their propriety or legality.
Pursuant to that mandate the Commission investigated the acquisition of the suit property and produced a report dated 10th November 2014 recommending regularization of the title, planning approval, and consideration of accommodating squatters occupying 8,000 to 10,000 acres. The court observed the tension between recognizing private title and directing accommodation of squatters.
Legal principles established
#- Where land has been recognised as private land, it is the National Land Commission that must either purchase the land to settle squatters or find them alternative land; settling squatters is not the obligation of a private registered owner.
- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with chances of success.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Petitioners' Notice of Motion dated 6th April, 2016
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondents (dismissed with costs)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; petition before the Environment and Land Court concerning land known as L.R. Number 26867, Lamu
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Muchiri & 8 others v Amu Ranch Co-operative Society & 2 others [2017] KEELC 1445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 6th April, 2016 within a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1445/eng@2017-05-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.