keelc-2026-04113

ROBERT NTOKOINE WANTO .................................................. 18TH PETITIONER FRANCIS EKIRU LALWED ........................................................ 19TH PETITIONER LEKUTUK SOLOMON PIRORIS ............................................... 20TH PETITIONER GRACE PELIANTO OREU ........................................................... 21ST PETITIONER CHARITY NJOKI PIRORIS ........................................................ 22ND PETITIONER GRACE NARANGU MESHAMI ................................................. 23RD PETITIONER SEEYIO MESHAMI ........................................................................ 24TH PETITIONER AND REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MUNISHOI GROUP RANCH 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LAIKIPIA ........... 2ND RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........................ 3RD RESPONDENT RULING 1. This suit was filed through a petition dated 12.5.2025 where the petitioners aver that they were born and bled on the parcel No. Laikipia/indigiri/6 registered in the names of Munishoi Group Ranch hence it is community land as per Article 63 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, the petitioners seek orders to be included in the group ranch register,, compensation and permanent injunction stopping their eviction. 2. The 1st respondent filed a Preliminary Objection dated 10.6.2025 which is the subject of this ruling. The grounds set out there in are that; 3. a. That the suit ofiends the Provisions of Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act and therefore the Honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. b. That the suit further ofiends the Provisions of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya and therefore this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. c. That the petition is grossly incompetent, misconceived, a non-starter and is an abuse of the court process.” In opposition thereof, the petitioners filed a replying afidavit sworn by the first petitioner on 12.3.2026. They argue that the 1st respondent has severally tried to evict the petitioners in the claims Nanyuki CMCC 59 of 2006 which was dismissed. That the 1st respondent lodged an appeal in Nyeri High Court Appeal no. 152 of 2009, which too was dismissed. They argue that their exclusion from the register is a continuous violation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4113/eng@2026-07-01 2

page 2 of 4

4. I have considered the rival arguments and submissions. In the celebrated case of Mukisa Biscuit Company Ltd Vs West End Distributors 1969 E.A 896, the court stated as follows regarding a Preliminary Objection. “ So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which, if argued as a Preliminary point may dispose of the suit”. 5. The petitioners have rightly submitted that a Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained as was stated in Oraro v Mbaja (2005)eKLR. 6. On the consent stipulated under Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, find it necessary to spell out the wording therein as follows; “(1) Except with the consent in writing of the adjudication oficer, no person shall institute, and no court shall entertain, any civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register for that adjudication section has become final in all respects under section 29(3) of this Act. “(1) Except with the consent in writing of the adjudication oficer, no person shall institute, and no court shall entertain, any civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register for that adjudication section has become final in all respects under section 29(3) of this Act. 7. From the aforementioned provisions of Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, it is clear that once an adjudication register in an adjudication section has become final, the dispute resolution mechanism under the Act ceases. Rightly so because the next step undertaken by the Land Adjudication Oficer is the transmission of the data contained in the register to the Director of Adjudication and settlement for further transmission to the Chief Land Registrar for the issuance of title deeds. This means that at the district ( read county) level, the particulars of the adjudication processes may no longer be available, even the ofices may close shop once the processes is finalized. It would therefore be an exercise in futility to send litigants back to a process which no longer exists. 8. In Republic v Musanka Ole Runkes Tarakwa & 5 others Ex-parte Joseph Lesalol Lekitio & others [2015] eKLR, the court stated that; “ It will be noted that Section 30 (1) above, prevents the institution of suits in court, on matters concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section, until the adjudication register has become final, except with the consent of the adjudication oficer. The adjudication register becomes final after exhausting the mechanism provided in the Land Adjudication Act”, 9. While in Stanley Lezen Mliwa vs. Leonard Kapala Makangalu & 2 Others Justice D.K Maraga , (as he then was) held thus; “ Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, does not oust the courts jurisdiction. All it does is to stop parties from rushing to court on any and every disagreement in the adjudication process until it is complete.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4113/eng@2026-07-01 3

page 3 of 4

10. Nowhere in the pleadings so far filed is there an indication as to when and how the adjudication took place. It follows that the court cannot strike out the suit on the basis that the petitioners did not obtain a consent under Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act. 11. On the issue of subjudice, I make reference to the provisions of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act which provides that: “ No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where such suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Kenya to grant the relief claimed”. 12. I have gone through documents relating to the previous suits. For the case no. CMCC 59 of 2006, only the judgment has been availed. In the said case, the current 1st respondents were the plaintifis, while the petitioners were the defendants. The case was dismissed on account that the claim was for trespass within the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunals. 13. On the alleged subsequent appeal, a ruling delivered on 17.6.2011 has been availed before this court. I however find that no substantive appeal was lodged as the case Civil Appeal No.152 of 2009 at Nyeri High Court was found to be incompetent for being filed out of time. 14. Another pleading, a plaint dated 5.1.2025 has been availed to this court. The case is apparently before the CM’s court Nanyuki where parties are similar to the previous case no. 59 of 2006. However, there is no case number or evidence of filing, thus the court cannot comment much on the said case. 15. Needless to say that there is no evidence to indicate that the constitutional issues raised by the petitioners herein have previously or currently been the subject of any court proceedings. 16. In the end, I find that the Preliminary Objection is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the petitioners. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4113/eng@2026-07-01 4

page 4 of 4