Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedConstitutional Petition filed 25/5/2016 ( Ndoto adjudication section, Samburu County )· [2026] KEELC 3514 (KLR)

Lemarkat & 2 others v Commissioner of Lands & 9 others (Environment and Land Petition 6 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3514 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 June 2026
MKMugo Kamau
2,498 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Environment and Land Court ruling at Nyandarua arises from a long-running constitutional petition filed on 25/5/2016 by three petitioners for residents of Lkotikal sub-location, Samburu County, who challenged the land adjudication of Ndoto adjudication section and the diversion of Kshs 25,462,500/- compensation payable by KETRACO for a power transmission line to the 8th Respondent group ranch. By judgment dated 16/11/2023, the Court declared the residents entitled to a pro rata share of the compensation and directed KETRACO to segregate the affected 339.5 acres using the official Ndoto adjudication boundaries, declining the remaining prayers and ordering each party to bear its own costs. A consent order of 19/3/2024 (adopted 23/4/2024) regulated disbursement of the funds, execution of way-leave agreements and release of the 8th Respondent's original title deed to KETRACO for registration of an easement. Registration stalled over discrepancies between the proprietor's name in the title deed and the group ranch's registration and PIN certificates. By an application dated 29/1/2026, the 8th Respondent sought an order compelling KETRACO to release the original title deed unconditionally. KETRACO, through its Legal Officer, confirmed it was not opposed to rectification but wanted a professional undertaking. The Court (Mugo Kamau, J) declined the application, holding that rectification of a title deed is governed by Order 80 of the Land Registration Act, that the 8th Respondent should simply apply to the Land Registrar, and that the application was not a consequential proceeding to the Judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court should intervene to compel return of the original Title Deed held by the 10th Respondent's Advocates pending easement registration

Holding

The application was declined; the Court held the 8th Respondent should seek rectification of the Title Deed from the Land Registrar rather than invoke the Petition

Reasoning

The title deed was lodged under a court-adopted consent of 19/3/2024 for purposes of registering an easement in favour of KETRACO. Registration could not proceed because of discrepancies between the name in the title deed and the 8th Respondent's Certificate of registration and PIN Certificate. The 10th Respondent was not opposed to rectification but sought a professional undertaking. The Court found the dispute did not require the Petition's intervention and that the Land Registrar is the proper avenue under Order 80 of the Land Registration Act, holding the application was not a consequential proceeding to the Judgment.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a title deed requires rectification due to discrepancies in the registered proprietor's name, the proper remedy is an application to the Land Registrar under Order 80 of the Land Registration Act, not an application within a concluded petition; withholding of a title deed under a court-sanctioned consent pending easement registration is a matter for the parties' undertakings.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 8th Respondent's Application dated 29/1/2026 seeking unconditional release of the original Title Deed was declined
  2. 2.The Court observed that the 8th Respondent's remedy is to apply to the Land Registrar for rectification of the Title Deed, not to seek relief in this Petition

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Adjudication ActSection 5
  • Land Registration ActOrder 80
  • Community Land Act

Cases cited (1)

  • Anarita Kiremi case
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 22/23 jurisdiction over a constitutional petition concerning land adjudication (Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284); instant application made as a consequential proceeding within the concluded Petition

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lemarkat & 2 others v Commissioner of Lands & 9 others (Environment and Land Petition 6 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3514 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Constitutional Petition filed 25/5/2016 ( Ndoto adjudication section, Samburu County ). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3514/eng@2026-06-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.