Chickoo Investments Limited v National Land Commission & 4 Others
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed Chickoo Investments' bid to reclaim prime Nairobi land, ruling it failed to prove fraud or irregularity in the 1993 transfer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the informal transfer of the suit property from the Petitioner to the 5th Respondent was procedural
- 2.If the answer to (a) is negative, whether or not the 4th Respondent obtained a good title
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought should be granted
- 4.Who bears the costs of this Petition?
Key legal issues
#Whether the informal transfer from the Petitioner to the 5th Respondent was procedural
The transfer was found procedural; the impugned acts were all done by Douglas Odhiambo Oyugi, who was later appointed a director, and if he lacked authority the offer would have lapsed leaving the Petitioner with no rights
The court held it could not determine Douglas Odhiambo's capacity as a director, a Companies Act matter for the High Court. In the alternative, if his acts were void for want of authority, the Petitioner never accepted the allotment or paid premiums, so the offer lapsed. If his acts stood, no ground existed to nullify the informal transfer. The letter requesting transfer made no mention of consideration, undermining the claim of no consideration paid.
Whether the 4th Respondent obtained good title
Yes; the Petitioner's grounds against the 5th Respondent's root title failed and nothing linked the 4th Respondent to the irregularities between the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent
The grant issued to the 5th Respondent on 14 May 1993 and transfer to the 4th Respondent registered 18 August 1993. No document linked the 4th Respondent to the dealings between the Petitioner and 5th Respondent. The loss of the original title was corroborated by gazette notices and provisional certificates; the 5th Respondent, not participating, was deemed not to deny receipt of the Kshs 4,000,000 consideration.
Whether the constitutional petition form was an abuse of process given limitation and alternative remedies
Though the claim was substantively a civil fraud claim with no constitutional violations pleaded, the petition form did not invalidate it; the delay argument was also not pursued as a striking-out ground
The court observed no constitutional violations were pleaded and the dispute touched fraud, triable in a civil claim. However, misjoinder of constitutional form did not defeat the claim since both parties fully litigated. On delay, the court found the explanation unsatisfactory (over 20 years to notice loss of prime land) but noted the 4th Respondent had not pursued striking out, so the merits were determined.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to change ratepayer records does not render a valid land transaction voidable
- An impugned advocate's signature cannot be held forged merely because a witness with similar initials denies it, absent LSK evidence
- Bringing a fraud-based land claim as a constitutional petition does not invalidate the claim
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Articles 22, 67 and 68 of the Constitution invoked in the petition
Relief refused
#Declarations that the transfers and registrations of L.R. No. 209/11288 violated Articles 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 & 50 of the Constitution and were void
Petitioner did not prove the allegations of fraud or irregularity to the required standard
Order compelling the 2nd Respondent to cancel and revoke the title and issue a title to the Petitioner
No ground established to nullify the informal transfer to the 5th Respondent
Permanent injunction against the 4th and 5th Respondents and Interested Parties
Petition dismissed; title of 4th Respondent not impugned
Order forbidding the 1st Respondent from paying compensation to any party other than the Petitioner
Petition dismissed; 1st Respondent did not participate
Mesne profits, general damages for breach of Article 40, general damages under Article 47 and exemplary damages
Petition dismissed for lack of merit
Costs
Costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
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.
Accordingly, I order the petition dismissed for lack of merit. Costs to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents.
If the actions of Douglas Odhiambo vide the letter dated 1st February, 1993 stand, then this Court finds no ground put forth to nullify the informal transfer done on 14th April, 1993.
None of the documents produced and on record link the 4th Respondent to the activities between the Petitioner and the 5th Respondent.
The failure to change records with the rate payer does not render a valid transaction voidable.
In the absence of such evidence, the impugned signature cannot be decided as forged merely because PW2 denied it belonged to him.
It should not have taken them over 20 years to discover that the land belonged to them; hence the explanation for the delay is not satisfactory.
Issues in the judgment
#Gazette Notice No. 10345 date given inconsistently as '31st December, 200' and 31 December 2004
Respondents state transfer to Real Industrial Park Ltd occurred on 18th August 1993, though Real Industrial Park was incorporated in 1998
Paragraph numbering defective: paragraph 14 appears twice and paragraph 38 is missing
Judgment dated and delivered at Kisii though the cause is ELC at Nairobi
Submissions and judgment bear future dates (2025-2026) relative to the 2019 filing, with no explanation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chickoo Investments Limited v National Land Commission & 4 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. 35 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5924/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.