Kalama & another v Attorney General & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E061 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 70 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Malindi dismissed an attempt to strike out a land fraud suit, confirming that even first-registration titles can be challenged for fraud in Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Sections 29 and 30 of the Land Adjudication Act oust the court's jurisdiction
The bar does not apply because the plaintiffs allege fraud that caused the greater portion of their land to be appropriated after adjudication was completed
The court distinguished between disputes emanating from the adjudication process itself and allegations of post-adjudication fraud. The plaintiffs admitted adjudication occurred but alleged fraud resulting in most of their land being hived off to the 4th to 8th defendants long after completion. Such allegations require investigation at a full hearing and cannot be disposed of on a preliminary objection.
Whether the defendants' first registration titles are indefeasible
No - fraud is an exception to indefeasibility even for first registrations
Counsel for the defendants invoked Section 28 of the Registered Lands Act and Section 26 of the Land Registration Act to argue first-registration titles cannot be impeached. The court held the Land Registration Act does not exclude any title from a fraud challenge, and if fraud were proved at hearing, the court could order cancellation of the titles issued to the 4th to 8th defendants.
Locus standi of the plaintiffs as administrators
The defendants failed to establish any proper ground showing the plaintiffs lack the right to litigate on behalf of the estates
The defendants attacked the grants of letters of administration as defective in form and content and contended the deceased were mere squatters. The court found no proper ground was established in submissions to show the plaintiffs lacked the right to litigate for the estates, without making final findings on the underlying claim.
Limitation
The claim that beaconing occurred in 2025 defeats the plea that the suit is time barred
The defendants argued the 12-year period from the 2010 adjudication lapsed in 2022. The court noted the plaintiffs plead that beaconing of the land occurred as recently as 2025, which answers the limitation objection; the cause of action is framed as continuing post-adjudication fraud rather than a challenge to the 2010 decision.
Legal principles established
#- Titles issued under the Land Registration Act, including first registrations, are open to challenge on the basis of fraud
- A suit alleging fraud perpetrated after the conclusion of adjudication, including recent beaconing, is not barred by Sections 29 and 30 of the Land Adjudication Act nor by limitation
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 23rd September 2025 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
- 2.The defendants shall file submissions on the application dated 6/6/25 within 14 days
- 3.The matter shall be mentioned on 25/2/26 for a ruling date
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)
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.
- Ochieng & another v Mireri & another (Environment and Land Appeal E043 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4743 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4743 (KLR)13 Jul 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kalama & another v Attorney General & 7 others (Environment and Land Case E061 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 70 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/70/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.