Kiilu & another (Suing as the Registered Trustees of the Royal Agricultural Society of Kenya) v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology & 11 others; County Government Of Kakamega (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 257 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 3632 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a land ownership claim over Kakamega's former showground, ruling that an allotment letter and long possession alone confer no title without registration.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the suit property
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership; its allotment was unprocedural, its lease was never registered, and possession alone conferred no title
The plaintiff relied on a letter of allotment dated 22nd July 1996 and an unregistered lease. The allotment lacked an approved PDP, PDP number and stand premium, hence issued unprocedurally. A letter of allotment is an invitation to treat conferring no interest in land. Registration of the lease was declined because parcel Block III/114 was already registered to the 3rd defendant in 1989. Possession, however long, cannot confer ownership of public land.
Whether the suit property was lawfully acquired by the defendants
None of the defendants lawfully acquired the property; the 1st defendant holds no proprietary or equitable interest and the allotments to the 4th to 11th defendants were null and void
The 1st defendant's claim rested on a Presidential decree, which is legally incapable of conferring land ownership, and no lawful step formalized the expansion. Its possession from 2007 had no legal basis. The Land Registrar has no statutory role in allocating public land; the allotment letters to the 4th to 11th defendants purported to allocate an already alienated parcel and were irregularly and unprocedurally issued, hence null and void.
Whether the plaintiff proved grounds for cancelling the 3rd defendant's title
The prayer for cancellation failed; no mistake, irregularity or misrepresentation was demonstrated
The 3rd defendant's registration was effected on 13th April 1989, long before the plaintiff's 1996 allotment. Allegations that the church's parcel was actually Block III/158 were mere hearsay with no evidence tendered. The court held that the identity of the church's other parcels was a convolution irrelevant to who owned the disputed old showground.
Whether the interested party was entitled to 5 acres on its counterclaim
The counterclaim was declined; the County Government can only hold trust land as steward and cannot own land in its own right
The interested party, as successor to the defunct Municipal Council, could at the material time only be vested with trust land under section 115 of the repealed Constitution. No evidence clarified whether the property was trust land or Government land between 1996 and 2007, so the counterclaim was not proved.
Identification of the suit property and the Block III/114 reference number
The court found the disputed property is not parcel Kakamega Municipality/Block III/114, as that number had been assigned to the 3rd defendant's 0.8 hectare parcel in 1989
Two parcels cannot share one reference number. Assigning the correct number is the survey department's function, not the court's. The reference number for the disputed property has never been assigned and registered; an unregistered reference number remains a mere proposal, so the disputed 6.813 hectares is not Block III/114.
Legal principles established
#- A letter of allotment is merely an invitation to treat and confers no interest in land until registration is completed under the applicable law
- An allotment letter must be predicated on an approved Part Development Plan; planning precedes allocation of unalienated public land
- Possession of public land, however long, cannot confer ownership rights
- No provision of law confers ownership of land through a Presidential decree or pronouncement
- A land reference number assigned by the survey department remains a mere proposal until registration by the Land Registrar
- Different parcels of land cannot share the same reference number
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.The interested party's counterclaim is dismissed
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit on land ownership, trespass and title cancellation within the Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiilu & another (Suing as the Registered Trustees of the Royal Agricultural Society of Kenya) v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology & 11 others; County Government Of Kakamega (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 257 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 3632 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kakamega ELC Civil Suit (further amended plaint dated 9th November 2018; original plaint dated 24th November 2008). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3632/eng@2026-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.