Mohamed & 4 others v National Land Commission & 12 others (Environment and Land Petition E014 of 2022 & E005 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Malindi Environment and Land Court dismissed local landowners' title claims and only partially confirmed Cordisons' allocation, ordering a fresh survey and NLC-led plan to resolve overlapping Lamu land titles.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petitions meet the threshold of constitutional petitions.
- 2.Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the Amended Petition.
- 3.Whether the parcels held by the Petitioners in E014 of 2022 were lawfully allocated, surveyed, processed, and registered, and whether their titles are valid.
- 4.Whether the process undertaken for Cordisons International Limited to allocate LR No. 32956 under PDP LMU/1281/01/16 was lawful, complete, and procedurally compliant to justify the remedies sought in Petition E005 of 2025.
- 5.Whether the Petitioners in either Petition are entitled to the relief sought, and if so, under what terms.
Key legal issues
#Threshold of constitutional petitions
Both petitions met the Anarita Karimi Njeru threshold of precision
The court restated the Anarita Karimi Njeru test as affirmed in Mumo Matemu: a petitioner must plead with reasonable precision the provisions infringed, the manner of infringement and the relief sought. On review, the Amended Petition identified Articles 10, 27, 40 and 47 with the manner of infringement, and the second Petition pleaded Articles 10(2)(c), 47 and 67(2), both with articulated reliefs.
Res judicata
The Amended Petition is not barred by res judicata
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act requires that the former suit be between the same parties or parties claiming under them, litigating under the same title, and heard and finally determined. The 1st-4th Petitioners were not parties to the cited Malindi decisions, and Cordisons failed to prove they litigated through those former parties. Further, the issues here go beyond whether the land is public land, encompassing title validity and the PDP process.
Validity of the Petitioners' titles in E014 of 2022
The 1st-3rd Petitioners failed to prove a lawful root of title; their titles could not be affirmed on the evidence
Certificates of title were issued in 2018 against letters of allotment allegedly issued in 1998, but the PDP accompanying the titles (LMU/1281/01/16) was approved only in December 2016 and no antecedent PDP was proved for the original allocation. The specific allotment letters for the three parcels were not produced, and no explanation linked those parcels to the paragraph 4A parcels. The court applied Munyu Maina on the burden of proving the legality of acquisition once title is questioned.
Lawfulness of the allocation process in favour of Cordisons
The process was not complete; the survey F/R 501/46 overlapped pre-existing registered parcels and the NLC identified procedural gaps and irregularities
Cordisons' process involved gazettement of PDP LMU/1281/01/16 in 2016, authentication of Survey Plan F/R 501/46 in 2021, the Section 14 notice in March 2022 and public hearings in 2023. However, the Director of Surveys confirmed that F/R 501/46 substantially overlaps pre-existing approved parcels, and the NLC's October 18, 2024 determination found the objections successful on grounds of irregularities and procedural gaps. An allocation of land already subject to registered interests cannot support final relief.
Entitlement to relief
Petition E014 of 2022 dismissed; Petition E005 of 2025 partially granted on the NLC's roadmap recommendations
Having found no proof of valid root of title for the Petitioners and an incomplete allocation process for Cordisons, the court adopted the NLC's October 18, 2024 recommendations as a Solomonic resolution: amend and resurvey the PDP excluding legitimate titles in Portion C, reserve Portion B for community resettlement, vest Portion D in the Kenya Forest Service, and retain the remainder of Portion C for allocation to Cordisons.
Legal principles established
#- Once the validity of a title is questioned, a registered owner must go beyond the title document and prove the legality of the acquisition
- A petitioner must plead with reasonable precision the constitutional provisions infringed, the manner of infringement and the relief sought (Anarita Karimi threshold)
- Allocation of unalienated government land requires a PDP first, then a letter of allotment, then survey, authentication and issuance of a land reference number
- Res judicata requires identity of parties; a party not party to or not claiming through the former litigants cannot be barred
Court orders
#- 1.Petition No. E014 of 2022 dismissed with costs.
- 2.The NLC Report dated October 18, 2024 to be implemented as set out in the judgment.
- 3.An order of mandamus compelling the County Government of Lamu to facilitate the amendment of the PDP and the subsequent resurvey of L.R. No. Lamu/Kiongwe/C, surveyed as LR. No. 32956, within 90 days of the judgment, retaining portions A, B and D but excluding existing legitimate titles in portion C.
- 4.Portion B (settlement area) set aside and reserved for the Communities through the Settlement Fund Trustees Board.
- 5.Area marked C, excluding existing legitimate titles, retained for allocation to Cordisons International Limited.
- 6.Conservation area marked D set aside for conservation and vested in the Kenya Forest Service.
- 7.The revision of the plan and resurvey to be completed and submitted to the NLC and the court for action within 90 days of the judgment for implementation.
- 8.Costs in Petition No. E005 of 2025 to be borne by each party.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition for enforcement of fundamental rights; original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court)
- Consolidated with
- ELC Petition No. E005 of 2025
Relief refused
#Petitioners' reliefs in E014 of 2022 (declarations on infringement of Article 40, orders of prohibition, cancellation of PDP No. 501/46, issuance of certificates of title)
The Petitioners failed to discharge their evidential burden of proving a valid root of title - no antecedent PDP at the time of the alleged 1998 allotments and no evidence of timely acceptance of the letters of allotment
Mandamus compelling NLC to issue a Letter of Allotment to Cordisons within 30 days, and cancellation of the titles of the 1st-4th Respondents, as sought in E005 of 2025
The surveyed footprint of F/R 501/46 overlaps pre-existing registered parcels and the NLC identified procedural gaps and irregularities, so the allocation could not be considered complete for final relief
Court-ordered cancellation of all titles encompassed in the parcel intended for Cordisons
It would require a thorough review of those titles which is beyond the scope of the Petition
Costs
Petition No. E014 of 2022 dismissed with costs; in Petition No. E005 of 2025, costs to be borne by each party.
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.
Having established the evidential adequacy of the root of the Petitioners’ titles, the Court now turns to the fourth question: whether the parallel process relied upon by Cordisons International Limited for the allocation of the suit land meets the legal threshold for alienation.
These findings are significant because the allocation of public land assumes that the land is available for transfer. When the land being allocated is already subject to registered interests or if the administrative procedures contain irregularities that could compromise the legal integrity of the process, then the allocation cannot be considered complete for the purpose of granting final relief as requested herein.
the recommendations by the NLC on how to resolve the overlaps will prevail, as they ofier a Solomonic precis of the current situation. It will be enforced. Consequently, ELC Petition No. E005 of 2025 will only be partially granted.
An order of mandamus is hereby issued, compelling the County Government of Lamu (4th Respondent) to facilitate the amendment of the PDP and the subsequent resurvey of the allocated L.R. No. Lamu/Kiongwe/C, surveyed as LR. No. 32956, within 90 days of this judgment.
Cost in Petition No. E005 of 2025 to be borne by each party.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradiction in the court's reasoning: paragraph 94 states it had 'established the evidential adequacy of the root of the Petitioners' titles' while paragraph 92 found the opposite
Petitioners' names appear inconsistently as 'Msellam Salim Mohamed' and 'Msellem Salim Mohamed' in the judgment
Inconsistent reference to the first petition as 'Petition No. 14, 2022' and 'Petition No. E014 of 2022'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohamed & 4 others v National Land Commission & 12 others (Environment and Land Petition E014 of 2022 & E005 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Petition No. E014 of 2022 (Lead) and ELC Petition No. E005 of 2025 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7597/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.