Kapyemit & 4 others v Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1840 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Busia dismissed a clan's claim to group ranch land, ruling claimants must first use Community Land Act dispute mechanisms before going to court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the petitioners, as non-members of Marigat Group Ranch, could claim entitlement to the suit property
Their claim is unsustainable because only members of a group ranch may claim a share of group ranch land; the petitioners admitted non-membership and non-occupation.
PW1 and PW2 conceded in cross-examination that the suit property belongs to Marigat Group Ranch and that they are not members. The claim of entitlement rested on hearsay from PW3, whose information came from an old lady called Kimoi. The court held that by operation of law only registered members of a group ranch may claim a share of its land.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the dispute as a court of first instance
Section 42 of the Community Land Act, 2016 ousts the court's first-instance jurisdiction over community land disputes; the doctrine of exhaustion required the petitioners to first resort to the mechanisms in Part VIII of the Act.
The court read Section 42 together with Sections 39-41 of the Community Land Act, which mandate internal, mediation and arbitration mechanisms before court. Following Mwasighwa & 55 others v Mbulia Community Land, it held that pleading constitutional violation does not bypass the doctrine of exhaustion, and no exceptional circumstances justified approaching the court directly.
Whether the claim that the 6th respondent refused admission to the group ranch for failure to pay Kshs. 70,000/- was substantiated
The claim was unsubstantiated and, in any event, should have been pursued through the Community Land Act dispute resolution mechanisms.
The petitioners alleged they were denied membership for failure to pay Kshs. 70,000/-. The court found this unsubstantiated and directed them to the elaborate dispute resolution mechanism in Part VIII of the Community Land Act, 2016, which applies to the suit property, before filing suit.
Legal principles established
#- Only members of a group ranch may lay a claim of entitlement to a share of land belonging to a group ranch.
- Section 42 of the Community Land Act ousts the jurisdiction of the court to entertain community land disputes as a court of first instance; parties must first exhaust internal and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Court orders
#- 1.The petitioners' suit is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction; court declines jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Community Land Act, 2016 (doctrine of exhaustion)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kapyemit & 4 others v Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1840 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1840/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.