County Government of Kakamega & another v Nyandieki & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 134 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 6058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kakamega County lost its land claim because it produced no proof of compulsory acquisition, and the court struck out a bank counterclaim for lacking jurisdiction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over the Fourth and Fifth Defendants' counterclaim for loan arrears under a charge
The Court lacks jurisdiction; the counterclaim is purely a commercial claim for recovery of sums due under a charge and is struck out
The Court of Appeal has severally held that the ELC lacks jurisdiction over claims for sums due under mortgages and charges. The counterclaim is purely for recovery of KShs 1,161,942 under a lending contract secured by a charge. Binding precedent (Co-operative Bank v Kangethe Njuguna) holds such claims fall within the High Court's civil jurisdiction. The dominant issue test confirms the counterclaim is not about use of, or title to, land.
Whether compulsory acquisition of S. Wanga/Ekero/472 was established
Not established; the Plaintiff adduced no evidence of compliance with the Land Acquisition Act (repealed) procedure
The alleged acquisition occurred around 1972 when the Land Acquisition Act (repealed) was in force. That Act prescribed elaborate procedures at Part II. The Plaintiff produced neither the register nor certificate of search for parcel 472 and adduced no evidence of compliance with the acquisition procedure, so the claim of compulsory acquisition failed.
Whether the Second Defendant's title to the suit property should be cancelled
Title stands; the Amended Plaint does not plead any of the Section 26(1) grounds against the Second Defendant
The Second Defendant is the undisputed registered proprietor, entitled to Article 40 constitutional protection and Sections 24 and 26 of the Land Registration Act. Section 26 obligates the Court to accept the certificate of title as prima facie evidence of proprietorship unless fraud or illegality is proved against the proprietor. The fraud pleaded was against the First Defendant only and concerned the statutory power of sale.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for recovery of sums due under mortgages and charges; the dominant issue in the dispute determines jurisdiction
- A registered proprietor's title is prima facie evidence of proprietorship and can only be nullified on the grounds in Section 26(1)(a) or (b) of the Land Registration Act
- Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court; jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation
Court orders
#- 1.The Fourth and Fifth Defendants' counterclaim is struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.The Plaintiff's case is dismissed
- 3.The First to Third Defendants shall have costs of the suit, to be borne by the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Sections 13(1)-(4) of the Environment and Land Court Act
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.
- Silas Simeri Opetu T/A Malaba Security Services v National Bank of Kenya & 2 Others[2026] KEELC 6010 (KLR)30 Sept 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kakamega & another v Nyandieki & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 134 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 6058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6058/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.