Kivure & 7 others (Suing on their Behalf and on Behalf of 4201 Members of Kishamba B Group Ranch) v Mwakina & 2 others (Sued as Defunct Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer Respectively of The Executive Committee of Kishamba B Group Ranch) & 4 others; County Government of Taita – Taveta & 35 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6678 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that Kishamba B Group Ranch land is community land, voiding unauthorized subdivision and requiring fresh elections and proper registration within 90 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property is community land
The suit parcel Sagalla/Kishamba 'B'/1 is community land
The property is registered in the name of Kishamba B Group Ranch, incorporated under the Land (Group) Representatives Act Cap 287, repealed by the Community Land Act. Under Article 63(2)(a), land lawfully registered in the name of group representatives is community land. The 1st Defendant did not dispute the registration and its own conduct in seeking approval to dissolve and subdivide confirmed the property was community land. No contrary evidence divesting the property of that classification was tendered.
Whether the Plaintiffs proved fraud, illegalities and breach of statute against the Defendants
Fraud, illegalities and breach of statute were proved
The 1st Defendant breached Section 47 of the Community Land Act by failing to register the group ranch and land, and illegally procured consents to subdivide after commencement of the Act. The committee's term had expired without elections, the register had not been updated, and 5 acres were allocated to the Defendants' advocate, a non-member, without any resolution. The 2nd to 4th Defendants condoned dealings contrary to the Act and Article 63(4).
Whether the Group Ranch resolved to dissolve and subdivide before commencement of the Community Land Act
No valid resolution to dissolve and subdivide was passed
The 19th December 2014 meeting lacked the 60% quorum required by Clause 17 of the Group Ranch Constitution to pass a dissolution resolution. The 15th May 2015 meeting merely confirmed minutes of the earlier void meeting and was not the agenda vehicle for dissolution. Any resolution could not override the Community Land Act, which in any event required strict compliance under Sections 46(2) and 47(3).
Whether the Group Ranch and suit property are exempt from the Community Land Act
There is no exemption; the Act applies
Having found the property is community land, the Act applies. Even on the Defendants' own case, the transitional provisions of Sections 46(2) and 47 required continued dealings to comply with the Act. No exemption was demonstrated; any purported exemption would be ultra vires Article 63(4) and Sections 34, 46 and 47 of the Act.
Whether the 1st Defendant proved fraud against the Plaintiffs
The 1st Defendant did not prove fraud against the Plaintiffs
Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and distinctly proved to a higher standard than the ordinary civil standard, though not beyond reasonable doubt. Despite particularising fraud in the defence and counterclaim, the 1st Defendant adduced no cogent evidence during trial to substantiate the allegations, including claims of false authority, uttering false documents and fraudulent sale of land.
Legal principles established
#- Land lawfully registered in the name of group representatives constitutes community land under Article 63(2)(a) of the Constitution
- Fraud must be specifically pleaded and distinctly proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities
- Under transitional provisions of the Community Land Act, dealings commenced before commencement of the Act must continue in accordance with the Act; failure to comply cannot be remedied by a prior resolution
- A party alleging fraud bears the burden of proving it with cogent and believable evidence
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 1st Defendant was not properly constituted in accordance with the Community Land Act No. 12 of 2017 and hence has no capacity or authority to manage or deal in the property known as Sagalla/Kishamba 'B'/1 and any dispositions devoid of the County of Taita Taveta's consent or authority are illegal, null and void
- 2.A declaration that the decision by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants vide a letter ref CR/2/324/168 dated 12th November 2018 granting consent to dissolve Kishamba B Group Ranch and subdivide the suit property, and any subdivision, allocation or titles issued consequent thereto, is illegal, unlawful, null and void
- 3.An order of certiorari quashing the decision by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants dated 12th November 2018 granting consent to dissolve and subdivide, together with all consequential decisions, actions, subdivisions, allocations and titles
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from implementing the decision of 12th November 2018 and from dealing with, alienating, leasing, charging, demarcating, surveying, subdividing or disposing of the suit property without the consent of the County of Taita Taveta, the Plaintiffs and contrary to the Community Land Act
- 5.An order directing the Defendants to cause issuance of a public notice in daily newspapers, radio stations and through County Administration offices convening a public meeting to elect members of Community Land Management Committee and develop an accurate register of members within 90 days, the cost of the advert to be borne by the Plaintiffs
- 6.An order directing the Defendants to comply with all statutory obligations under the Community Land Act in registration, adjudication, demarcation, survey, sub-division and allocation of portions of the suit parcel within 90 days, the cost of the exercise to be borne equally by all concerned parties
- 7.Each party to bear own costs of the suit and counterclaim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over community land disputes); Article 63(4)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kivure & 7 others (Suing on their Behalf and on Behalf of 4201 Members of Kishamba B Group Ranch) v Mwakina & 2 others (Sued as Defunct Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer Respectively of The Executive Committee of Kishamba B Group Ranch) & 4 others; County Government of Taita – Taveta & 35 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6678 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELC 74 of 2019 (Voi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6678/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.