Kiyay v Lomuke & 10 others (Environment and Land Case E030 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1752 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land buyer kept occupation of his plot, but lost his ownership claim because neither side could prove their case with properly certified group ranch records.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to 23 acres as a tenant in common in the group ranch
Not proved. The plaintiff's exhibits were not certified and he tendered no evidence of the registration status of the group ranch under the applicable land regime.
The court found the plaintiff's documents (P. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) uncertified with originals unavailable. The plaintiff gave no evidence of the registration status of the group ranch, and a record from the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer could have shed light on the subdivision. The court could only conclude the defendants acted without legal mandate, which does not establish the plaintiff's ownership claim.
Whether the group ranch committee's decision and subdivision of the land in favour of the 7th defendant was lawful
The defendants acted without legal mandate; the register and committee proceedings were unauthenticated and non-compliant with the Land (Group Representatives) Act and the Regulations of 1970.
The register (D. Exhibit 1) was not certified by the Registrar nor signed by the majority of officials, and the committee ruling (D. Exhibit 3) was not submitted to the Registrar within 14 days. Group ranch dealings must be captured in statutory Forms A-N under Rule 7 of the 1970 Regulations. Neither the Land (Group Representatives) Act procedures nor the Community Land Act transition requirements were followed.
Whether the 7th defendant proved ownership of the suit property to entitle him to cancellation of the sale agreement and a permanent injunction
No. The 7th defendant's claim was undermined by contradictory evidence and unauthenticated documents.
The 7th defendant claimed the land belonged to his deceased brother Losute Doiywan, yet other defendants produced a share certificate in the name of his mother, Cheporenger Tinapa, which the court found unauthentic. The adjudication register was not before the court and his exhibits were uncertified and unsigned by the required officials.
The proper legal regime governing the group ranch land after repeal of Cap 287
Undissolved group ranches fell under the Community Land Act, 2016 by virtue of Article 63 of the Constitution and Section 47; community land cannot be disposed of except in terms of legislation specifying members' rights.
Article 63(4) prohibits disposal or use of community land except under legislation specifying the nature and extent of members' rights. Section 47(3) of the Community Land Act bars sale, lease or conversion to private land before registration under the Act. The group ranch here had not complied with the transition requirements, and the court directed the County Community Land Registrar to regularize its status within six months.
Legal principles established
#- A title to land under a group ranch is held by elected representatives on behalf of the group in equal but indivisible shares, i.e. tenancy in common, until subdivision
- A copy of the register or documents of group representatives must be certified by the Registrar to be admissible as prima facie evidence of its contents
- Land held by group representatives shall not be sold, leased, or converted to private land before registration under the Community Land Act
- Consent to subdivide land belonging to a group ranch is a statutory process governed by Section 7(3) of the Land (Group Representatives) Act
Court orders
#- 1.The court declines to grant prayers (a) and (c) of the plaint dated 22/6/2023 (declaration of entitlement to 23 acres as tenant in common, and mesne profits)
- 2.An order of status quo is issued preserving the plaintiff's current occupation of the land as of 25/5/2022 until the County Community Land Registrar, West Pokot regularizes the status of the group ranch within 6 months from the date of the judgment, in relation to its officials and alignment of the group ranch with the Community Land Act
- 3.There will be no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land comprised in a group ranch/community land (Article 63 of the Constitution; Land (Group Representatives) Act Cap 287, repealed; Community Land Act 2016)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiyay v Lomuke & 10 others (Environment and Land Case E030 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1752 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (plaint dated 22/6/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1752/eng@2026-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.