Fred K. Sabai & 5 others v District Land Adjudication & Settlment Office, Trans-Nzoia & 11 others [2019] KEELC 4827 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court could declare lawful allottees of undegazetted forest land
The court declined to proclaim legality of the allocations but recorded, for order on the ground, the persons recognized by the Land Adjudication Office as having interest in the plots
Both parties, including the government Land Adjudication Officer, admitted the land remains undegazetted forest land which can only be allocated upon surrender and degazettement. Declaring the counterclaimants lawful allottees would therefore proclaim the legality of allocations the state cannot yet complete. The court instead made a practical declaration of recognized interest to maintain order pending degazettement.
Who are the proper allottees of the suit land
The 2000 allocations by the Provincial Land Adjudication and Settlement Office, as recorded in the register produced by DW1, are the proper allocations; the original plaintiffs' undocumented 1996 claims fail
DW1 gave an orderly account showing plots 695 to 715 including both the original plaintiffs and the counterclaimants. The 1996 Provincial Administration-era allocations were informal and undocumented; the 2000 re-allocation reduced plot sizes but did not render the original plaintiffs landless, as they too appeared in the 2000 list. Allegations of fraud and double allocation against the 1st defendant lacked basis.
Effect of counterclaimants' non-payment of allotment dues
Non-payment was not fatal because payments were stopped from 2005 after discovery that the land was forest land, and the Director of Land Adjudication may exercise leniency
Although failure to pay within the specified time ordinarily causes an offer to lapse, DW1 testified payments were stopped after the forest land discovery and files locked pending degazettement. The court accepted, for purposes of the case only, that the office may exercise leniency, so the offers had not lapsed.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not declare persons lawful allottees or legal owners of land that remains undegazetted forest land, but may record the persons a government agency recognizes as having an interest in the land
- Failure to pay dues in a letter of allotment is not fatal to the offer where the settlement office exercises leniency and payments were stopped pending degazettement
- The Land Adjudication and Settlement Office is the body mandated by law to administer settlement schemes, and its formal 2000 allocations superseded undocumented 1990s Provincial Administration allocations
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the persons named (Wilfred M. Cheprot - 697; Juma William Chemosit - 699; Robinson Chesbol - 700; Peter Kibarak Kibet - 702; Peter Chemaswet - 703; Barnabas K. Kiteywo - 704; Nathan Jindet Ndiwa - 707; James Boiyo Bello - 708; John Kapkara Masai - 712; Stanley Kipkoech - 714) are persons recognized by the 1st defendant as having been allocated and as having interest in those plots in Kitalale Settlement Scheme Phase II
- 2.Mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to the counterclaim, their family members and anyone claiming under them to vacate the said parcels, and in default they be evicted at their own costs
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land claims and counterclaims (Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fred K. Sabai & 5 others v District Land Adjudication & Settlment Office, Trans-Nzoia & 11 others [2019] KEELC 4827 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4827/eng@2019-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.