Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedPetition dated 3rd October 2023 (Isiolo)· [2025] KEELC 4481 (KLR)

Karamoh Impex and Transport Limited v County Government of Isiolo & 2 others (Petition E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4481 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 June 2025
OMOguttu Mboya
7,332 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~29 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed an Isiolo landowner's petition because a title certificate alone cannot prove ownership when land was irregularly allocated.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner sought declarations that it is the lawful registered proprietor of LR No. 7918/736 in Isiolo township, injunction, mandamus, certiorari and damages against the Respondents, who through agents were constructing the County Aggregation and Industrial Parks on the suit property. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission was enjoined as an Interested Party. The matter was canvassed by affidavit evidence and written submissions. The court framed two issues: whether the Petitioner proved lawful ownership entitling it to constitutional protection, and whether the Petition was an abuse of process. On the first issue, the court held that a certificate of title is an end product which cannot prove its own authenticity; a challenged title requires proof of root of title. Alienation of trust land required application to, and approval by, the County Council of Isiolo before the Commissioner of Lands could allot. The Petitioner produced only the certificate, without the transactional documents. Moreover, the land had been gazetted as prison land and was not unalienated government land available for allocation. The title was therefore procured in vacuum and could not attract Article 40(3) protection. On the second issue, the court found the Petition barred by res sub judice, having been filed while the EACC recovery suit was pending, in which the Petitioner had already filed a defence. It was a deliberate and premeditated scheme to procure a judgment in rem to defeat that suit, and hence an abuse of the court process. The Petition was dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent and the Interested Party, the court expressly declining to address revocation of the title as that issue remained sub judice in the earlier suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of root of title

Holding

The Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving lawful acquisition of the certificate of title; the title was procured in vacuum and cannot attract constitutional protection.

Reasoning

The court held a certificate of title is an end product and cannot prove its own authenticity. Trust land alienation required an application to, and approval and recommendation by, the County Council of Isiolo before the Commissioner of Lands could allot. The Petitioner produced only the certificate, without the application, council minutes, letter of no objection, PDP, letter of allotment or acceptance. The land was also gazetted as prison land and thus not unalienated government land available for allocation.

p. 10
02

Res sub judice and abuse of process

Holding

The Petition was barred by the doctrine of res sub judice and constituted an abuse of the court process, having been filed to defeat the pending EACC recovery suit.

Reasoning

The Petitioner was aware of Isiolo ELC E003/E004 of 2021 in which the EACC sought to invalidate its title, having filed a defence therein. It should have filed a counterclaim in that suit. Filing the petition was a deliberate and premeditated scheme to procure a judgment in rem to gag the Interested Party, falling within the concept of abuse of process as expounded by the Supreme Court.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A certificate of title is an end product; where its validity is impugned the bearer must prove the root of title by adducing the transactional documents leading to its issuance.
  • Indefeasibility of title cannot be deployed to countenance an illegality; a title procured unprocedurally, irregularly or illegally does not attract Article 40(3) protection.
  • Trust land could only be alienated by the Commissioner of Lands subject to the approval and recommendation of the designated local authority.
  • A later suit between the same parties over the same subject matter pending before a competent court is barred by res sub judice.
  • A suit filed for collateral purposes to defeat pending proceedings constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Petition be and is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.Cost of the Petition be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Respondent; and the Interested Party only.
  3. 3.The Costs in terms of [ii] above shall be agreed upon and in default to be taxed in the conventional manner.
  4. 4.The court refrained from addressing the question of revocation of title because that issue is sub judice in ELC E004 of 2021.
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 40 and 64 of the Constitution, 2010 (petition for enforcement of property rights); constitutional petition under Article 22/23 framework

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karamoh Impex and Transport Limited v County Government of Isiolo & 2 others (Petition E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 3rd October 2023 (Isiolo). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4481/eng@2025-06-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.