Ntutu v County Council of Narok & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 21 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1064 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court upheld a private landowner's title, stripped a defunct county council of its rights to collect Maasai Mara land revenues, and ordered the money repaid.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the correction notice of 31st July, 1997 lawfully altered the adjudication section declared on 6th May, 1997
The principal land adjudication and settlement officer had no power to order a correction of the declaration notice after publication, and there is no record of the correction being implemented on the ground; the adjudication as declared on 6th May, 1997 stood
Relying on Manangoi v Attorney General, the court held that Section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act empowers declaration of an adjudication section but the Act does not donate power to cancel such a declaration once gazetted. The correction notice of 31st July, 1997 was issued after the register had been declared complete and the certificate of finality issued on 29th August, 1997, and the Act allows post-completion changes only through objections under Section 25. No record showed the correction was implemented on the ground.
Whether the 1st defendant could challenge the plaintiff's title after failing to object during the adjudication process
The 1st defendant, having acquired parcels 152 and 153 out of the same adjudication and thus knowing of the process, forfeited its right to raise any objection or claim by failing to use the Section 25 mechanism
The court found the 1st defendant was aware of the ongoing adjudication because it benefited from parcels 152 and 153. The proper avenue for any grievance was an objection under Section 25 of the Land Adjudication Act. Instead, the 1st defendant engaged Gatome and Associates for survey work long after individuals had acquired interests, and the court characterized this as waking up from slumber too late.
Whether the 1st defendant could rely on Article 40(6) of the 2010 Constitution to attack the plaintiff's title
Having never pleaded Article 40(6) in its defence and counterclaim or sought leave to amend, the 1st defendant could not invoke it in submissions, and the 2010 Constitution cannot apply retrospectively to a title issued in 1997
The court held parties are bound by their pleadings. The 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim was filed in 2000, well before the 2010 Constitution, and no amendment was sought. The 1st defendant therefore did not challenge the history of the plaintiff's title in the manner it ought to have done, and reliance on Article 40(6) in submissions was misplaced.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an account of revenues collected by the 1st defendant over the suit land
The 1st defendant had no business remaining on the plaintiff's land or collecting monies that ought to have been collected by the plaintiff, and is duty bound to render an accurate account and pay over the monies
Having found the title valid and the 1st defendant's continued occupation and revenue collection unjustified, the court held the plaintiff, as registered proprietor from 14th October, 1997, was entitled to the declaration, injunction, accounts, payment of moneys found due and interest as prayed in the amended plaint.
Legal principles established
#- A land adjudication officer has no statutory power to cancel or correct a declaration of an adjudication section after it has been published, and any dispute arising from an adjudication process must be resolved through the objection mechanism under Section 25 of the Land Adjudication Act; a party aware of the process that fails to object forfeits its right to challenge it collaterally in court
- A party is bound by its pleadings and cannot invoke Article 40(6) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 for the first time in submissions to attack a title acquired under the former constitutional and statutory regime
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that with effect from 14th October, 1997, all rights interests and privileges hitherto enjoyed or had by the 1st defendant in or over or in relation to the leased portion, including reversionary interest, levying or collection of rent, tariffs, royalties, fees or other revenue, were extinguished and vested in the plaintiff
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from purporting to exercise such purported rights, interests or privileges and in particular from demanding, levying or collecting rent, tariffs, royalties, fees or any other revenue in respect of the leased portion
- 3.An account of all rent, tariffs, royalties, fees and other revenue collected or received by the 1st defendant from the 2nd defendant and any other person since 14th October, 1997, to be rendered within thirty (30) days from the date of judgment
- 4.An order for payment by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff of all moneys received or found due on the taking of such accounts
- 5.Interest on the amount found due to the plaintiff at such rate and for such period as the court shall think fit
- 6.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- 7.Dismissal of the 1st defendant's defence and counterclaim dated 7th October, 2000
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (Article 162(2)(b), Constitution of Kenya), determining the amended plaint and the 1st defendant's counterclaim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ntutu v County Council of Narok & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 21 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 1064 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1064/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.