Nthatu & another v Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer & 5 others; Karikamburi Primary School & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1138 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Chuka ruled it only hears procedural challenges to land adjudication awards, refusing oral testimony as unnecessary.
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 petitioners should be permitted to give viva voce evidence in support of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether viva voce evidence was necessary for the fair hearing of the petition
The request for viva voce evidence was refused; affidavit evidence and written submissions were held sufficient
The court observed that the petition challenges awards made by adjudicatory organs under the Land Adjudication Act, whose ownership-dispute organs hold the mandate for merit determinations. The court itself is confined to procedural disputes. On that basis, no proper basis existed for insisting on oral testimony, and the petitioners could ventilate their case fully on affidavits with leave to file two supplementary affidavits.
Legal principles established
#- The court's jurisdiction over petitions challenging adjudication awards under the Land Adjudication Act is confined to procedural questions; merit determinations on ownership belong to the dispute resolution organs under the Act
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the petitioners to file two supplementary affidavits relating to the two parcels to ventilate whatever additional issues they wish to ventilate
- 2.The plea for viva voce evidence is rejected
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction under the Land Adjudication Act framework, the court noting it 'only exercises jurisdiction to deal with disputes relating to procedure'
Relief refused
#Oral request by the petitioners for viva voce evidence in the petition
The court found affidavit evidence and written submissions adequate, since the court's role is limited to procedural disputes, not merit determinations on land ownership
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment as supplied
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.
Jurisdiction to make merit determinations on questions relating to ownership of land that is the subject of adjudication under the Land Adjudication Act is vested in various ownership dispute resolution organs established under the Act.
This court only exercises jurisdiction to deal with disputes relating to procedure.
In this regard, the petitioners will have leave to file two supplementary afidavits relating to the two parcels to ventilate whatever additional issues they wish to ventilate. The plea for viva voce evidence is rejected.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment as supplied does not state the case title, case number or neutral citation, and identifies parties only by role
The date of delivery ('24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026') postdates the court's typical filing cycle; flagged as stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nthatu & another v Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer & 5 others; Karikamburi Primary School & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1138/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.