Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 27th May 2025 (Kakamega ELC)· [2026] KEELC 199 (KLR)

Bandi v Land Registrar Kakamega & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E039 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 199 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 January 2026
ANA. Nyukuri
2,301 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to remove restrictions on land titles because the owner could not prove the land was lawfully acquired, confirming riparian land stays public.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, registered proprietor of Lugari/Likuyani Block 1 (Vihiga) parcels 137, 246 and 240, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 27th May 2025 seeking removal of restrictions lodged on the titles by the 2nd respondent, which claimed the parcels were public land. The applicant traced his root to allocation by Vihiga Farmers Company Limited, of which he was a shareholder, relying on a consent judgment in Kakamega Civil Case No. 344 of 1988. The 2nd respondent, through investigator Jackson Kaptum, deposed that complaints from the St. Monica and Ivugwi communities prompted investigations revealing the parcels had been reserved for a water dam (riparian land), market, cattle dip and dispensary, and that the applicant's lawful entitlement was limited to plots 11 and 119. The court framed a single issue: whether the respondents were justified in placing the restrictions. Applying Article 40, sections 26 and 76 of the Land Registration Act, and the Land Act, and following Dina Management, Munyu Maina and Kinyanjui Kamau, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate lawful acquisition: his own registers confirmed only plots 11 and 119; the 2002 board amendment reallocating the disputed plots lacked approvals from the Director of Surveys and Director of Physical Planning; and riparian land is unalienable public land. The application was dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the restrictions placed on the suit properties by the 2nd respondent were justified

Holding

Yes - the applicant failed to prove lawful acquisition of the three plots; they were reserved for public utilities and the riparian parcel could not lawfully be allocated privately

Reasoning

The applicant's title documents alone were insufficient. Both parties' registers confirmed only plots 11 and 119 were allocated to him as a shareholder. The alleged 2002 board amendment reallocating the three plots lacked the statutory approvals of the Director of Surveys and Director of Physical Planning required under section 33(1)(b) of the Survey Act and section 41 of the repealed Physical Planning Act. The riparian parcel was public land under Article 62(1)(i)(l) and section 12(2) of the Land Act. Restrictions were therefore justified pending investigations.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A person invoking Article 40 protection must demonstrate lawful acquisition of the property
  • Riparian land is public land and cannot be allocated to private individuals
  • A title may be challenged where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme, notwithstanding indefeasibility

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 27th May 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; application under section 76 of the Land Registration Act (not expressly stated in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bandi v Land Registrar Kakamega & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E039 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 199 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 27th May 2025 (Kakamega ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/199/eng@2026-01-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.