Malakwen & 3 others v Rono & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 236 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4047 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a land claim in Uasin Gishu because the plaintiffs failed to strictly prove fraud and had no real interest in the disputed parcels.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction over parcels 131, 132, 120 and 17
No. The Plaintiffs were found to hold as much or more land than their entitlement under the members register, and parcels 120, 131 and 132 are registered in the name of the Government for public utilities, so the Plaintiffs have no discernible interest capable of protection by injunction.
The court compared the shareholdings (1 share = KShs. 1,500 = 10 Acres) against the members register and titles. The 1st Plaintiff held 20.91 Acres against an 18-Acre entitlement; the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs' father held 11.989 Acres against 9 Acres; and the 4th Plaintiff's husband paid only KShs. 4,500, entitling him to 30 Acres yet the register shows 42.329 Acres. The members register, unchallenged, formed the basis of the titles. Having no interest in the disputed parcels, the Plaintiffs could not obtain a permanent injunction, and no interference with their proprietary rights was established.
Whether the amended map and/or plan creating parcels 120, 131 and 132 is unlawful and/or illegal
No. The allegation of fraudulent demarcation and RIM amendment was not strictly proved; the parcels are registered to the Government of Kenya, not to the 1st-4th Defendants, and nothing on their green cards shows they were subdivisions of the Plaintiffs' parcels.
Fraud must be pleaded and strictly proved to a standard above a mere balance of probabilities. The RIM produced showed only two amendments, neither affecting the mother title LR No. 11127/3. The green cards for parcels 120, 131 and 132 showed registration in the name of the Government of Kenya opened on 06.06.1994, defeating the claim that they were hived off the Plaintiffs' land for the Defendants' benefit. No evidence of the alleged fraudulent plan or collusion was produced.
Who shall bear the costs of the suit
The Plaintiffs, having failed to prove their case, must bear the costs of the proceedings to the 1st to 6th Defendants, all inclusive.
Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act vests costs in the court's discretion, with costs following the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders. The Plaintiffs filed the suit but did not prosecute it successfully, and no exceptional circumstances justified departing from the statutory principle in favour of the successful Defendants.
Legal principles established
#- Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved; something more than a mere balance of probabilities is required
- A permanent injunction is granted on the merits after hearing, and only where the plaintiff has rights capable of protection
- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, otherwise orders (Section 27(1) Civil Procedure Act)
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs to the 1st to 6th Defendants, all inclusive
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title to land (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution; ELC Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Malakwen & 3 others v Rono & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 236 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 4047 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 236 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4047/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.