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 2nd September 2016, amended 23rd October 2019· [2025] KEELC 5301 (KLR)

Kitirap & 4 others v Director of Land Adjudictation & 3 others; Kilerai & 16 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition 9 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 5301 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 March 2025
MKMOHAMMED N. KULLOW
2,106 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed the Siria Clan's land petition because the same issues were already decided in earlier court cases, and no titles proved ownership.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioners, allegedly members of the Siria clan, filed a petition seeking declarations that their constitutional rights under Articles 10, 47 and 73 were violated by the failure of the 1st Respondent to complete and certify the Masurura Adjudication Section process concluded on 16th November 1990, together with mandamus compelling completion of the adjudication register and issuance of title deeds, and a permanent injunction restraining re-declaration of Masurura as an adjudication area. They relied on an advisory opinion of the 4th Respondent directing completion of the process. The Respondents and Interested Parties opposed, contending that a 1991 order of Justice Tank quashed the adjudication committee and effectively the adjudication process; that a fresh process commenced in 1996 stalled; and that the petition was res judicata Kisii ELC Misc. Application No.48 of 2012 (dismissed by Okong'o J in 2014) and JR No.404 of 1990. The Interested Parties also challenged the Petitioners' locus standi. The court heard viva voce evidence from one witness per party and received written submissions. Holding that the issues in the petition had been raised and canvassed in the prior judicial review proceedings, whose decision quashed the entire adjudication process, the court found the petition res judicata. It further found the Petitioners had not established infringement of their right to property, producing no title or register evidencing their beneficial allocation. The petition was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

The petition is res judicata because its issues were raised and canvassed in prior judicial review proceedings, whose decision quashed the entire adjudication process

Reasoning

The court found that the matters in the petition had already been litigated in Misc. Civil Application No.48 of 2012 and JR No.44 of 1990, in which the adjudication process certified complete as at 16th November 1990 was quashed. The Respondents and Interested Parties had pleaded res judicata, relying on authorities including IEBC v Miana Kiai and Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya. The court accepted this defence, which was decisive of the petition.

p. 5
02

Proof of infringement of the right to property

Holding

The Petitioners failed to establish that their right to property was infringed, having produced no title or register evidencing their beneficial allocation

Reasoning

Although the Petitioners alleged that specific parcels (Transmara/Masurura/554, 298, 115, 104 and 162) were allotted to individual Petitioners, no title or register was produced in evidence. Having found the petition res judicata, the court further held that the Petitioners had not discharged the burden of proving that their constitutional rights were infringed by the adjudication process.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A petition raising issues already raised and canvassed in prior judicial review proceedings is res judicata
  • A petitioner alleging infringement of the right to property must produce evidence such as title or register showing they are beneficiaries

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 73
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 10
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47

Cases cited (5)

  • PZ Cussons East Africa Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority
    [2013] eKLR
  • Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Miana Kiai & 5 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya
    [1999] eKLR
  • Republic v Kenya School of Law & 2 others ex parte Juliet Wanjiru Njoroge & 5 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Peter Kimandiu v Land Adjudication Officer Tigania West District & 4 others
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Constitution of Kenya 2010, Articles 10, 47 and 73 (constitutional petition alleging violation of rights and statutory duties)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kitirap & 4 others v Director of Land Adjudictation & 3 others; Kilerai & 16 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition 9 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 5301 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 2nd September 2016, amended 23rd October 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5301/eng@2025-03-17

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