Paika & 27 others v Nkipapai & 17 others; National Land Commission (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court froze the subdivision of Rombo Group Ranch land and ordered officials to disclose records after land was allegedly allocated to non-members.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants met the threshold for injunctive relief
Yes - a prima facie case was established because seven non-members were allegedly allocated land meant for members, no controverting evidence was filed, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants.
The court found that seven named non-members had been allocated land meant for group ranch members and no further affidavit controverted this serious anomaly. Allowing non-members to own and dispose of such land would prejudice members. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants remaining on land they occupy pending resolution of ownership questions, including allegations of unequal allocations to officials' relatives and friends.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the information sought under Article 35
Yes - the plaintiffs, as citizens, are entitled under Article 35 to all the information sought in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the motion.
The court held that Article 35(1) guarantees every citizen access to information held by the state and information held by another person required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom. The information sought - minutes, membership lists, the survey contract and allocation schedules - was required for protection of the plaintiffs' rights over the group ranch land, and the right being in the supreme law cannot be denied.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff seeking an interlocutory injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable loss not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience.
- Every citizen has a constitutional right of access to information held by the state or held by another person required for the exercise or protection of a right, under Article 35 of the Constitution.
Court orders
#- 1.Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 15th and 16th defendants from further surveying, demarcating and subdividing LR Loitoktok/Rombo 'B'/406 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from entering, trespassing, ploughing and/or occupying portions of land occupied by Kapaita Ole Paika and Benson M. Muleu or any other member of Rombo Group Ranch pending determination of the suit
- 3.Restraint on the 1st Defendant from further issuing and/or transferring title deeds in respect of parcels excised from the suit land
- 4.The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 16th defendants to furnish the plaintiffs with minutes of the community assembly meeting approving the subdivision, list of original members, list of current members, the survey contract between the 16th and 17th defendants, and a list of persons allocated land with acreages
- 5.The 18th Defendant to furnish the plaintiffs with the cadastral map presented by the 17th Defendant for registration and a schedule of persons allocated land, their ID numbers and acreages
- 6.Order of status quo in respect of all parcels excised from land hitherto registered as Loitoktok Rombo 'B' 406 pending hearing and determination of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 35 and 40 of the Constitution; Orders 40 Rules 1(a), 2 and 10, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Land Act (Act No. 6 of 2012)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paika & 27 others v Nkipapai & 17 others; National Land Commission (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E043 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21570/eng@2023-11-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.