Keittany & 8 others v Land Registrar Uasin Gishu County & 286 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4262 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that contested land ownership claims must be tested through live witness testimony, not just written arguments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application to set aside the directions for disposal of the petition by written submissions and substitute a viva voce hearing was merited
The application was merited; the petition raised complex, contested historical and factual issues on land ownership that could only be thoroughly interrogated through oral testimony, and the discretion to vary the mode of hearing was properly exercised in the applicants' favour.
The court acknowledged that the default position under the Mutunga Rules is disposal of petitions on affidavit evidence and written submissions, as directed on 03.10.2025. However, applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Fanikiwa Limited v Sirikwa Squatters Group, where competing claims to land ownership exist, a court must make a special endeavour to unravel them through viva voce evidence, examination and cross-examination. Perusal of the petition showed the issues required oral testimony; the applicants thus demonstrated sufficient cause, and no party would be prejudiced.
Costs of the application
Despite the general rule that costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the application in view of its circumstances.
The court recognized the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act as establishing the general rule that costs follow the event, but retained discretion to depart from it. Considering the circumstances of the application, it found it just that each party bear their own costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- Where a constitutional petition involves disputed ownership of land and competing claims of fact, the court should adopt a trial process involving examination, cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses rather than dispose of it on affidavit evidence and written submissions alone.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th February, 2026 is allowed as prayed.
- 2.The court's directions of 3rd October, 2025 that the petition be canvassed by written submissions are set aside and replaced with directions that the petition be heard by way of viva voce evidence.
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the application.
- 4.The petitioners are directed to fix the matter for hearing at the earliest convenience.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Mutunga Rules; the ruling determines an interlocutory Notice of Motion in the petition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keittany & 8 others v Land Registrar Uasin Gishu County & 286 others (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4262 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E002 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4262/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.