Lolkidienye & 9 others v Olemiranit (Sued as Chairperson of LongewanGroup Ranch A) & 13 others; Samburu County Government. & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8502 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a challenge to Longewan Group Ranch subdivision because the members proved nothing and individual titles had already legally taken effect.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicable law and tenure status of the group ranch land
The group was governed by the Land (Group Representatives) Act with Community Land Act transitional provisions; the 1981 title was closed on 16.12.2020 and the land is now private land under individual ownership
The title issued in 1981 under the repealed Registered Land Act conferred absolute ownership on the members as co-owners (tenants in common). The green card showed the title closed on subdivision on 16.12.2020, creating parcels 2750-3169. The Land Registration Act, in force at closure, confers absolute ownership on individual members unless titles are impeached under Section 26. The transition from co-ownership to individual ownership had taken effect.
Whether the petitioners' grievances (discriminatory allocation, conflicting registers, loss of public utilities, lack of public participation, 500 Ha loss) were proved
None of the grievances were proved; the petitioners adduced no tangible evidence and are themselves included in the register used to generate titles
The burden under Section 107 of the Evidence Act lay on the petitioners, who elected to proceed by written submissions despite raising factual issues. The register availed by the 11th respondent contains all nine petitioners; the area list provides for public utilities from Nos. 413; no particulars of the 21 members allegedly left landless were given; and the leadership dispute was never taken to the Registrar or Magistrates' court as the primary statute requires.
Weight to be given to the Director of Land Adjudication & Settlement report of 10.3.2021
The report's recommendations were overtaken by events and devoid of logic since the title had been closed on 16.12.2020, before the letter was authored
The Director recommended dissolution of the group representatives and completion of survey work by June 2021, failing which the land would transition to community land. However, the survey had been done and the mother title closed on 16.12.2020, creating 419 parcels. Dissolution was a matter for the Registrar under Section 13 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act. Notably, the office which authored the report was itself the 12th respondent, represented by the AG who did not agree with the report.
Availability of relief given the rights of non-party majority members
No relief was available; granting it would prejudice the majority of the 412 members who are non-parties
Only 9 of about 412 members petitioned, and the complaint letters were authored by the 1st petitioner with unverified signatures. The enjoyment of petitioners' rights must be weighed against others' rights under Article 24(1). Reliefs affecting registered non-party members would offend fair hearing under Article 50(1). Since the transition to individual ownership had crystallised, the claims were moot.
Legal principles established
#- Title documents issued to group representatives under the repealed Land (Group Representatives) Act remain in force until new titles issue under the Community Land Act, and dispositions completed before commencement are registered by reference to the law in force at execution
- A group ranch under the repealed Land (Group Representatives) Act was held by members as a community of ownership (tenancy in common) in equal undivided shares until individual titles crystallised
- Once the mother title is closed on subdivision and individual parcels are created, legal rights shift with the crystallisation of individual ownership and challenges to the subdivision process become moot
- A petitioner alleging constitutional violation bears the burden of adducing tangible evidence of the violation; the court is guided by evidence of probative value, not speculation
- Under Section 13 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act, dissolution of group representatives requires the Registrar's consent and disputes should first go through the statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.The petitioners to pay costs to the 1st-11th respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (invoked by petitioners for relief)
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.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lolkidienye & 9 others v Olemiranit (Sued as Chairperson of LongewanGroup Ranch A) & 13 others; Samburu County Government. & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8502 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 16.1.2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8502/eng@2025-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.