Kamau v Mandal & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3293 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landbuyer who registered property transfers while a court case over that land was active lost everything, and the register was restored.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether some of the orders are available to the defendants
- 2.Whether the defendants' supporting affidavit is competent
- 3.Whether the plaintiff's actions violated the doctrine of lis pendens and what orders should the court issue
Key legal issues
#Availability of certain orders (inhibition, production of documents, injunction, interim measures)
Prayers (c), (d), (e), (f) and (j) were unavailable: (c) and (d) fall within statutory administrative mandates requiring exhaustion of prescribed procedures; (e) and (f) were an abuse of process as restyled orders previously refused; the joinder of the 4th intended defendant consequently failed
The court held that the Land Registration Act and the Access to Information Act provide elaborate procedures the defendants had not exercised, citing the exhaustion doctrine from the Supreme Court. Re-attempting injunctive relief previously declined in the ruling of 9 November 2022, restructured as conservatory orders, was held abusive of court process since the matter was not public interest litigation.
Competence of the defendants' supporting affidavit
The affidavit was properly commissioned in Kenya and valid under the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act and Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules; the plaintiff's notarisation objection failed
The 1st defendant averred in her supplementary affidavit that she and her co-defendant were physically present in Kenya when the affidavit was commissioned, and this uncontradicted evidence displaced the plaintiff's challenge, which the court characterised as a fishing expedition and a red herring.
Violation of the doctrine of lis pendens
The plaintiff's registration of the decree, transfers of both suit properties to herself, procurement of provisional certificates, and onward transfer of L.R. 12715/1223 to the 3rd intended defendant all occurred while the suit was actively prosecuted after service of the set-aside application on 20 January 2022, and were unlawful and void
Service on the plaintiff's counsel revived active prosecution of the suit on 20 January 2022; the suit remained active until the 9 November 2022 ruling set aside the ex parte judgment. Applying Co-operative Bank of Kenya and Naftali Ruthi Kinyua, all post-21 January 2022 dealings violated lis pendens, and registrations made even after the judgment was set aside were illegal.
Legal principles established
#- Mere institution of a suit does not trigger the doctrine of lis pendens; it sets in upon active prosecution of the suit
- Registration of dealings over suit property during active prosecution of litigation, in violation of lis pendens, is illegal and may be cancelled; neither the wrongdoer nor a beneficiary may derive rights from such illegality
- A court will not usurp the statutory administrative mandate of government bodies where the law provides an elaborate procedure
- Service of court process on a party's counsel is effective service, counsel being the party's agent
Court orders
#- 1.The Chief Land Registrar is directed to cancel all registrations and entries on L.R. No. 12715/1223 (I.R. No. 71863) made between 26 January 2022 and 5 September 2023, and any subsequent registrations thereafter, so that the land reverts to the names of Shmina Mandal and Shahel Mandal, the registered owners as at 27 December 1996
- 2.The Chief Land Registrar is directed to cancel all registrations and entries on L.R. No. 12715/1224 (I.R. No. 71864) made between 26 January 2022 and 20 July 2022, and any subsequent registrations thereafter, so that the land reverts to the names of Shmina Mandal and Shahel Mandal, the registered owners as at 27 December 1996
- 3.The provisional certificates held by Daniel Ngumbau Muia or any other person over L.R. No. 12715/1223 (I.R. No. 71863), and the provisional certificate held by the plaintiff over L.R. No. 12715/1224 (I.R. No. 71864) or by any other person, are deemed cancelled, null and void
- 4.A mention date shall be issued for purposes of pretrial directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land; motion brought under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 40 Rule 1 & 2, Order 45 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Sections 26, 79 & 80 of the Land Registration Act, and Articles 40, 47 & 50 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Prayer (c) - inhibition order/restriction on the suit parcels
Falls within the administrative mandate of the land registry under Part IV of the Land Registration Act, which the defendants had not exercised
Prayer (d) - order compelling the Land Registrar to supply certified copies of transfer documents
Access to information from a public entity requires exhausting the statutory procedure under the Access to Information Act and review by the Commission on Administrative Justice first
Prayers (e) and (f) - interim injunction/interim measures of protection
An abuse of process, being restructured versions of injunctive orders previously refused in the ruling of 9 November 2022
Joinder of the 4th intended defendant (Land Registrar, Central Lands Registry)
The threshold for joinder was not met given the findings on prayers (c) and (d)
Joinder of the 3rd intended defendant (Daniel Ngumbau Muia)
The court concurred with the plaintiff that his claim arising from the cancelled illegal registration should be pursued in separate proceedings against the plaintiff for damages
Costs
No costs order appears in the final disposal orders; prayer (k) that costs be borne by the plaintiff was not addressed in the disposition
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.
The Chief Land Registrar is hereby directed to cancel all registrations and entries on L.R. No. 12715/1223 (I.R. No. 71863) made between 26 January 2022 and 5 September 2023, and any subsequent registrations thereafter, so that the land reverts to the names of Shmina Mandal And Shahel Mandal, the registered owners as at 27 December 1996.
That by this order, the provisional certificates held by Daniel Ngumbau Muia or any other person over L.R. No. 12715/1223 (I.R. No. 71863), and the provisional certificate held by the plaintifi over L.R. No. 12715/1224 (I.R. No. 71864) or by any other person, are deemed cancelled, null and void.
the practical approach remains that mere institution of suit does not trigger the doctrine. Rather, it is upon the active prosecution of that suit that the doctrine automatically sets in.
The plaintifi in this case engaged in illegal acts, and neither she nor the 3rd intended defendant may derive any rights or benefits from them. Therefore, this court finds that all registrations and entries entered against the registers of the suit properties after 21 January 2022 are illegal.
The defendants have now restructured the previously sought injunctive orders as conservatory orders but have argued them as injunctive orders, which this court finds to be an abuse of the court process, as they seek similar orders through ingenious means
Any claim the 3rd intended defendant has arising from such illegal conduct should be pursued through separate legal action against the plaintifi for damages, and not within the present proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#The body of the ruling refers to the intended 4th defendant as the Land Registrar, Central Lands Registry, yet the final orders are directed to 'The Chief Land Registrar', and Mr. Kuria is recorded as appearing 'for the 4th defendant' although joinder of the 4th intended defendant was refused
The plaintiff's replying affidavit is inconsistently described as 'sworn on 26 January 2026, sworn on 26 January'
The 3rd intended defendant is referred to with inconsistent spellings, 'Daniel Ngumbau Muia' and 'DAniel Ngumbau Muia'
The final orders do not expressly dispose of prayer (g) for joinder of the 3rd intended defendant or prayer (k) on costs, though the court's reasoning indicates both were declined
The judgment does not state its case number or neutral citation on its face as reproduced
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v Mandal & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3293 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3293/eng@2026-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.