Tamei & 416 others v Kaiye & 9 others (Environment & Land Case 99 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6934 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a bid by 417 people to join Torosei Group Ranch, ruling its closed 1989 register cannot be reopened.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as members of Torosei Group Ranch
The Plaintiffs, being children/dependants of registered members, are not entitled to direct registration; the register was closed in 1989 upon dissolution and cannot be reopened
All Plaintiffs admitted their parents are registered members and each occupies about 20-25 acres of the suit land. Correspondence from the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement confirmed the group ranch was dissolved and the register closed. Each member will receive about 350 acres for their household, so the Plaintiffs will benefit through their parents under Maasai customs. Ordering registration would open the door to an avalanche of similar claims and would subject members to the new Act retroactively, which would be unjust.
Whether the denial of membership is discriminatory
No discrimination was proved
The Plaintiffs alleged that relatives of the officials were registered after 1989 while they were denied. The court found it unclear whether additional members replaced deceased members, and no birth certificates or identification documents were produced to show the additional members were related to officials of the 10th Defendant. The Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate they would not obtain a share through their registered parents.
Whether the permanent injunction against subdivision should issue
No; the Plaintiffs failed to prove their case and the subdivision should proceed unhindered
Having found the Plaintiffs cannot be registered as members at this stage, they have no prima facie case to stop the subdivision. Evidence of the surveyor and correspondence from the Director of Land Adjudication confirmed all necessary approvals, including LCB consent and county approval, had been obtained. Members have waited too long for title deeds and the subdivision ought to proceed.
Legal principles established
#- The Community Land Act, 2016 does not operate retrospectively to govern membership questions of a group ranch dissolved under the repealed Land (Group Representatives) Act
- Group ranch tenure under the Land (Group Representatives) Act is a tenancy in common among registered members, and group representatives cannot be compelled to reopen a closed register
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land known as Kajiado/Torosei/11
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenta v Njapit & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 1755 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1755 (KLR)24 Mar 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tamei & 416 others v Kaiye & 9 others (Environment & Land Case 99 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6934 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Case (Kajiado), Plaint dated 1st November 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6934/eng@2024-10-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.