Mac Dee Fast Food Limited & 2 others v Inspector General of Police & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 174 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6117 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether registration of the 1st plaintiff as proprietor of land parcel number Thika Municipality Block 2/832 was improper
- 2.Whether the said land is public land reserved for Thika Makongeni Police Station
- 3.Whether the 6th defendant uprooted beacons relating to the suit land
- 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint
- 5.Who should bear costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st plaintiff's registration as proprietor was improper and whether the suit land is public land reserved for the police station
Both issues answered against the defendants; no counter-pleadings or impeaching evidence were presented, so the registered title stands and the land is not shown to be public land
The title chain traced from the 1995 allotment to Zipporah Wambui through registration of Vikta Maina Ngunjiri in 1998 to transfer to the 1st plaintiff in 2015 was uncontroverted. None of the defendants filed a counterclaim to impeach the title or joined the previous proprietor. The National Police Service, the National Land Commission and the joined government directors tendered no evidence that the land was reserved for the police station. The defence evidence came only from two community policing lobby members who did not know the parcel number or registered proprietor.
Whether the 6th defendant uprooted the beacons
Proved on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, which the 6th defendant did not rebut
Both plaintiffs' witnesses testified that the 6th defendant uprooted the boundary beacons and ignored the National Land Commission's letter dated 11/6/2018 directing reinstatement. The 6th defendant elected not to tender any evidence on the allegation. On the burden of proof under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the court was satisfied the 1st plaintiff proved trespass against the 6th defendant.
Entitlement to reliefs
Only the 1st plaintiff had a cause of action; it was granted declaration and permanent injunction, but the regularization and alternative compensation reliefs were refused
The court observed the 1st plaintiff is a separate legal entity and sole registered proprietor; the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs had no registrable interest and their claims were untenable. Absent impeaching pleadings and evidence, Article 40 of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Land Registration Act enjoined the court to protect the rights conferred by registration. The regularization plea was unsupported and the alternative relief fell away with the grant of the primary relief.
Legal principles established
#- It is the duty of the party challenging a registered title to present impeaching pleadings and evidence under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal, unprocedural or corrupt acquisition
Court orders
#- 1.The claim by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs is rejected and dismissed for lack of cause of action
- 2.A declaration that land parcel number Thika Municipality Block 2/832 measuring 0.3373 hectares, located in Thika Makongeni Area, belongs to the 1st plaintiff
- 3.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 6th and 7th defendants and their juniors against trespassing on, damaging, wasting, erecting structures on or interfering with land parcel number Thika Municipality Block 2/832
- 4.Parties shall bear their respective costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (suit concerning title to land; not expressly cited in the judgment text)
Relief refused
#Order compelling the 9th defendant to regularize the plaintiffs' documents
Nothing was said or urged in support of the plea; relief not available in the circumstances
Alternative relief of compensation by the Government at current market value
The primary relief having been granted, the alternative relief is unavailable
Claim by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs
No evidence they were co-registered proprietors; no cause of action
Costs
Parties shall bear their respective costs of the suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Judgment is entered in favour of the 1st plaintiff against the 1st, 6th and 7th defendants
A declaration is hereby made that land parcel number Thika Municipality Block 2/832 measuring 0.3373 hectares or thereabouts, located in Thika Makongeni Area, belongs to the 1st plaintiff.
A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 6th and 7th defendants and their juniors against trespassing on, damaging, wasting, erecting structures on or interfering with land parcel number Thika Municipality Block 2/832
Parties shall bear their respective costs of the suit.
The defendants neither presented impeachment pleadings nor tendered proper impeaching evidence against the title held by the 1st plaintiff.
The claim by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs is rejected and dismissed for lack of cause of action.
Issues in the judgment
#Parcel size stated inconsistently within the judgment
Date of consent admitting supplementary documents stated inconsistently (17/2/2025 vs 17/2/2020) and the supplementary bundle dated 4/9/2023 is later referred to as dated 4/9/2025
Amended plaint pleads trespass on 'Thika Municipality Block 3/832' in submissions while the suit parcel is Block 2/832
The OCS is described as the 6th defendant but the judgment nowhere sets out the full list of defendants mapping numbers to parties, and the defence was never amended after joinder of the 8th and 9th defendants
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mac Dee Fast Food Limited & 2 others v Inspector General of Police & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 174 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6117 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Thika ELC Suit (not stated in judgment; plaint dated 21/11/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6117/eng@2025-09-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.