Omuse & 21 others v Kenya Linen Drapers Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6702 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Isiolo dismissed a land claim, confirmed the 1st defendant's ownership of Isiolo Township Block 5/70, and ordered the plaintiffs to vacate within 120 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the land registrar could cancel the 1st defendant's title
The registrar's report dated 21st June 2021 purporting to cancel/rectify the title was ultra vires, void and a nullity ab initio; only a court may cancel a title under section 80 of the Land Registration Act
Section 80 of the Land Registration Act vests the power to cancel or rectify a certificate of title in a court of law. The land registrar could not arrogate to himself the power to determine the legality of the 1st defendant's title or to cancel it. Following Macfoy v United Africa Ltd, an act done without jurisdiction is void and of no legal effect.
Whether the plaintiffs proved ownership of the suit land by longevity of occupation
No. The plaintiffs bore the burden of proof, tendered photographs without a section 106B electronic certificate (inadmissible and devoid of probative value), and claims on behalf of deceased predecessors lacked letters of administration. Trust land cannot be acquired by occupation or adverse possession
As the party asserting ownership based on long occupation, the plaintiffs had to prove their claim under sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act. By foregoing cross-examination and relying on unauthenticated photographs they failed to discharge the burden. Their claim through deceased parents lacked grants of representation, and rates payments conceded the land was trust land, incapable of acquisition by prescription under section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Whether fraud was proved against the defendants, particularly the 1st defendant
No fraud was proved; the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to meet the higher standard required, including that the land was not open for allotment
Although the plaintiffs particularized fraud, they had already failed to prove any lawful rights over the land. Allocation of government land was vested in the President and Commissioner of Lands under the Government Land Act, and any challenge to the allotment required joinder of the National Land Commission. The 1st defendant produced an approved PDP, survey, beacon certificate, indent and certificate of lease, and no evidence showed the land was not open for allotment.
Whether the 1st defendant proved its counterclaim to ownership
Yes. The 1st defendant established lawful allocation and registration and is entitled to the rights of a registered proprietor under sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, including exclusive possession, occupation and use
The 1st defendant tendered the letter of allotment, part development plan, consent, letter of no objection from the defunct county council of Isiolo, beacon certificate, indent and certificate of lease. These documents were unchallenged and produced by consent. The court found no irregularity or illegality in them, and the impugned registrar's report was itself void for being ultra vires.
Legal principles established
#- Only a court of law can cancel, nullify or rectify a certificate of title; a land registrar has no such power
- A report or decision made without jurisdiction is ultra vires, void and a nullity ab initio
- Trust land/government land cannot be acquired by prescription, longevity of occupation or adverse possession
- Fraud must be specifically pleaded and distinctly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities
- A claim made on behalf of a deceased person requires a grant of letters of administration
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' suit be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Defendant only
- 3.The Counterclaim by the 1st Defendant is allowed: a declaration that the 1st defendant/counter-claimer is the registered and lawful owner of L.R No. Isiolo Township/Block 5/70
- 4.The Plaintiffs/defendants to the counterclaim to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the 1st defendant within 120 days
- 5.In default of vacating, the counter-claimer may levy eviction; an Eviction order is hereby issued
- 6.Costs/expenses of any eviction to be certified by the Deputy Registrar and borne by the plaintiffs
- 7.Costs of the counter-claim awarded to the counter-claimer, borne by the plaintiffs
- 8.Any relief not expressly granted is declined
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (not expressly quoted; suit is a land dispute filed by Plaint)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omuse & 21 others v Kenya Linen Drapers Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6702 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6702/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.