Mucheke & another v Muraya (Environment and Land Appeal 73 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court upheld a buyer's claim to 2 acres bought in 1994 without a written agreement, because decades of occupation and part payment proved the sale.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal over title to land
The Tribunal acted ultra vires the Land Disputes Tribunal Act when it ordered transfer of the land, so the award adopted as a decree was a nullity; however, the trial court's judgment could still stand on the pleaded sale transaction and occupation
Section 3(1) of the repealed Act limited Tribunals to boundary disputes, claims to occupy or work land, and trespass. By ordering the 1st Appellant to transfer the 2 acres, the Tribunal usurped power to determine title. The court relied on James Alukoye Were v Lurambi Division Land Disputes Tribunal to hold the award void, yet found the appeal could not succeed on the evidence of the underlying transaction.
Res judicata based on pending Nakuru High Court Civil Suit No. 19 of 2011
The court could not find res judicata because the fate of the Nakuru suit was not proved
The Appellants relied on a pending suit as a shield, but produced only the pleadings and did not prove its outcome. A pending suit also does not establish res judicata, which requires a prior final decision on the same matter between the same parties.
Whether the Respondent acquired an interest in the suit land despite no written sale agreement
The Respondent's family's long occupation, development, burial of a relative, payment of survey fees and part payment of the purchase price proved the sale transaction and his claim
The contract of sale was in 1994, before the 2003 amendment of section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act; the proviso preserved suits in part performance where the purchaser took possession. The Appellants admitted receiving Kshs.33,000/- from the late Kiarie and never demanded the balance in their pleadings. The evidence of PW2 to PW6 corroborated occupation since 1994.
Legal principles established
#- Land Disputes Tribunals under the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act No. 18 of 1990 had no jurisdiction to determine title to land or order transfer of land; such an award is a nullity ab initio
- A party in occupation in part performance of a contract for disposition of an interest in land may maintain the claim notwithstanding the absence of a written agreement under the proviso to the pre-2003 section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The Appellants to pay costs of the appeal to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Nyahururu
- Nyandarua CM ELC No. 226 of 2018 (Nyahururu CMCC No. 104 of 2018)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the magistrates' court (ELC appeal from Nyahururu CM ELC No. 226 of 2018)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mucheke & another v Muraya (Environment and Land Appeal 73 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal from Nyahururu CM ELC No. 226 of 2018 (Nyahururu CMCC No. 104 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3308/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.