Mbinda & another v Land Adjudication Officer, Makueni & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3132 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowners' petition because they could not prove they actually filed an objection during land adjudication.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was an objection filed before the Land Adjudication Officer
- 2.Whether the Petitioners were granted a fair hearing
- 3.Whether the Petitioners' right to property was violated
- 4.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought
- 5.Which order should be made on costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners filed an objection to the Land Adjudication Officer
No objection was filed; the receipt produced was uncertified and the objection document itself was not produced
Section 26(1) of the Land Adjudication Act requires an objection in writing within 60 days of publication of the notice of completion. The Petitioners produced only an uncertified receipt dated 11th October, 2010, while they were able to obtain certified proceedings of the Committee and Arbitration Board. Objection documents are public records; the failure to produce the objection itself led the court to conclude none was filed.
Whether the Petitioners were denied a fair hearing under Article 50(1)
No violation; since no objection was filed, there was no hearing to be denied, and the 13-year delay in following up undermined the claim
The court found no objection was lodged, so the Petitioners could not complain of a hearing denied. Further, titles issued on 15th April, 2015, yet the Petitioners only inquired about a pending objection over 13 years later, casting doubt on the claim. Article 50(1) was held not to be violated on the evidence.
Whether the Petitioners' right to property under Article 40 was violated
No violation; parcel 3722 was created through a lawful process under the Land Adjudication Act
The 6th Respondent's complaint to the Adjudication Committee was upheld, creating parcel 3722, and the Petitioners lost before the Arbitration Board. Having failed to prove any objection to the Land Adjudication Officer, the Petitioners had no basis to claim arbitrary deprivation of property. The creation of parcel 3722 was lawful and no Article 40 violation was established.
Entitlement to reliefs
Not entitled to any reliefs as no constitutional violation was proved
Having found no violation of Articles 40 or 50, the court held the Petitioners entitled to none of the reliefs sought, and dismissed the petition with costs to the 1st to 5th Respondents.
Legal principles established
#- A party alleging that an objection was filed before the Land Adjudication Officer must produce the objection itself; a mere receipt, unc certified, does not prove filing
- A party cannot allege denial of fair hearing without demonstrating that a hearing was accorded but not in accordance with due process
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed with costs to the 1st to 5th Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction (petition under Articles 40 and 50 of the Constitution); no specific jurisdictional provision is cited in the judgment as provided
Relief refused
#Declaration that the adjudication process over plots 3168 and 3722 Wautu Adjudication Section is unconstitutional, null and void
No constitutional violation was proved; no objection to the Land Adjudication Officer was established
Certiorari to quash the adjudication register for plots 3168 and 3722
Not entitled to reliefs since Articles 40 and 50 not violated
Cancellation of the title deeds for Makueni/Wautu/3168 and 3722
Creation of parcel 3722 was lawful
Mandamus compelling reopening of the adjudication section and issuance of one title in the Petitioners' names
Petition dismissed; no unheeded objection was proved
Permanent injunction against the 6th Respondent, compensation/exemplary damages and special damages of Kshs.167,776/=
No violation of constitutional rights established; petition dismissed
Costs
Petition dismissed with costs to the 1st to 5th Respondents
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.
It is therefore clear that there was no objection filed by the Petitioners.
One cannot allege denial of fair hearing when he has not demonstrated that he was accorded a hearing which was not in accordance with due process.
The creation of parcel 3722 was lawful. I therefore find that there was no violation of the Petitioners' rights under Article 40 of the Constitution as alleged.
Having found that the Petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated, their petition fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st to 5th Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment as provided
The submission dates are internally inconsistent: Petitioners' submissions dated 20th August, 2026, yet the 1st to 5th Respondents' submissions are dated 13th October, 2025
The court and station are not expressly identified in the judgment as provided
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbinda & another v Land Adjudication Officer, Makueni & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3132/eng@2026-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.