Mulama (Suing as the legal representative of the Late Lawrence Mulama Itolondo) v Chairperson and the Secretary, Board of Management Amalemba Primary School (Both being seud on behalf of the School Committee, Amalemba Primary School) & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 339 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1727 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A registered title document is not enough in Kenya - courts will cancel land acquired illegally, so prove how the land was originally allocated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff's title to L.R. Kakamega/Town Block IV/467 was lawfully acquired
The acquisition was unlawful because the suit property was Trust land and no evidence was tendered of compliance with the setting-apart procedure under section 13 of the Trust Land Act, no Council resolution, no gazettement, no PDP and no public participation
The court held that at the time of allocation the land was Trust land vested in the County Council of Kakamega. Section 13 of the Trust Land Act and sections 115 and 117 of the repealed Constitution prescribed an elaborate procedure: notification of the Divisional Land Board, notice to the community, hearing of representations, Board recommendation, Council resolution and gazettement. None of these steps was proved; nor was a PDP attached to the allotment letter or an approved survey availed. The land was also already in public use as a school, so it was not available for allocation.
Whether the defendants trespassed on the suit property
No trespass was proved because the plaintiff failed to establish lawful ownership, and the 1st defendant was already in occupation when the plaintiff obtained title
The court defined trespass as unlawful and unauthorised entry into another's property, requiring proof of lawful ownership by the claimant. Having found the plaintiff's title unlawfully acquired, the plaintiff could not maintain the trespass claim. The school had been in open, peaceful and continuous occupation since 1989, predating the 1993 registration, so the 1st defendant did not need the plaintiff's permission to use the land.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought
The plaintiff, having failed to prove lawful acquisition to the required standard, was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the amended plaint
Since the foundational claim of lawful proprietorship failed, all ancillary reliefs (injunction, demolition, declaration, eviction and costs) fell away. Indefeasibility under section 26 of the Land Registration Act did not assist the plaintiff because a title acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme is challengeable, and the plaintiff bore the burden of proving the legality of his root of title once challenged.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership but may be challenged where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
- Before Trust land is set apart for allocation to an individual, the procedure under section 13 of the Trust Land Act, including Divisional Land Board consideration, public participation and Council resolution, must be complied with
- Trespass can only be established by a person who demonstrates lawful ownership of the property allegedly trespassed upon
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 3rd defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mulama (Suing as the legal representative of the Late Lawrence Mulama Itolondo) v Chairperson and the Secretary, Board of Management Amalemba Primary School (Both being seud on behalf of the School Committee, Amalemba Primary School) & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 339 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1727 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1727/eng@2026-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.