Kiambu Dandora Farmers Company Limited v Amboseli Court Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E506 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5245 (KLR)

its subdivisions as part of Nairobi Block 173, pending the hearing and determination of his application inter-partes. iv. That the honourable Court be pleased to issue an order restraining the 4th Defendant, from processing, approving, or recognizing the conversion or subdivision of L.R. No. 15400 and its subdivision, as part of Nairobi Block 173, pending the hearing and determination of this suit. v. That this honourable court be pleased to grant any other orders and reliefs it deems just and expedient in the circumstances. vi. That the cost of this application be provided for. 2. The reasons are contained on the face of the application and on the supporting afidavit of Joseph Mwangi Karanja sworn on 29.9.2025, who is the director of the plaintifi’s/applicant. 3. The plaintifi company director deposes that the plaintifi is the registered owner of LR No. 11379/3,which has been planned into various blocks including title No. Nairobi Block 173, and has been in their exclusive and peaceful possession since acquisition from the estate of the late Khan Bhaar in 1967, 4. The plaintifi director deposes that it has also obtained or the requisite approval of subdivisions and development of the suit land from the National Land Commission and Nairobi City Council, to which it has issued allotment letters to its members or shareholders in respect to Title No. Nairobi block 173. 5. The plaintifi director deposes that the 1st defendant is unlawfully laying claim to a parcel which it describes as LR No. 15400, herein the disputed property, which parcel was allegedly obtained through an unlawful subdivision of the suit property, which parcel was then purportedly amalgamated with LR No. 11344/23, a parcel of land belonging to the the 3rd defendant. 6. The plaintifi director deposes that neither the plaintifi nor the 3rd defendant consented to the alleged subdivisions or amalgamation that gave raise to LR No. 15400, herein after the disputed property. 7. The plaintifi director disposes that though the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Land and Physical Planning issued Gazette Notice No. 520 dated 26.1.2021 vol CXXII – No. 20 directing for the conversion of old land registration Numbers into current registration regime, the disputed portion was not listed as one of the parcels eligible for the conversion, exercise . 8. The plaintifi director deposes that despite the gazettee notice, omitting the disputed property, the 1st defendant in concert with the 4th defendant have purported to convert and subdivide the disputed parcel as if they form part of Title No. Nairobi block 173. 9. It is deposed that the 4th defendant despite the above is actively supporting or facilitating the alleged illegal conversion and subdivisions of the disputed parcel without any statutory authority, thereby abetting the trespass and the unlawful occupation of the suit property including the disputed property by the 1st defendant. 10. The plaintifi director deposes that given the foregoing that no lawful excision, subdivision or amalgamation could possibly have been carried out without either the plaintifi’s consent or the involvement of lawful government authority, in the impugned process. 11. The plaintifi director deposes that as a result of the defendants’ illegal actions, the plaintifi risks sufiering irreparable loss including permanent deprivation of ownership rights, destruction of property, loss of investment opportunities and loss of prospective tenants or investors. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 2

page 2 of 9

12. The plaintifi director deposes that the plaintifi has already incurred substantial costs in seeking to protect its property including legal expenses, otherwise the relief sorts are merited. 13. To substantiate the averments attached to the Plaintifi’s supporting afidavit are bundles of documents marked JM-1 which comprise a copy of the certificate of the incorporation, CR12 form, copy of the original title deed for LR No. 11379/3, a copy of an oficial search certificate, transfer forms, deed plans, letters dated 15.12.2021 and 27.2.2025, court orders to resurvey LR NO. 11979/3 and 15400, survey report by both the director of surveys and the national land commission, letter of appointment of Nduku Investigators Bureau, letter from the director of survey, investigation report by Nduku investigation report bureau, certified folio register FA 293/48, a letter to NLC dated 19.2.2019 to director of survey, letter dated 24.1.2025 and 29.7.2025 and 9.11.2023 to the county secretary, ombudsman, principle secretary ministry of land respectively, gazette notice no. 520 and 9433 dated 26.1.2021 and 10.9.2021 and a letter from the county secretary addressed to the county secretary dated 28.4.2025. 14. The application is opposed by the 4th defendant through the replying afidavit sworn by Wilfred Muchae the Deputy Director of surveys on 22.7.2026 on behalf of the 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents. 15. The Deputy Director in his supporting afidavit sets out the history of the suit land with efiect from 1963. He gives the particulars and manner of acquisition of the mother tile by its initial owner, the subsequent intention by the government of kunya to compulsorily acquire the land and the taking up of vacant possession by government on 20.11.1974. 16. The deponent capture the subsequent registration of the land in the name of the government after compulsory acquisition, after the making of payment of deposits and monies for the compensation on acquisition in August 1979 to the bank account of Registrar of the High Court, in view of the pending disputes among the shareholders and directors of the initial owner. 17. Equally the deponent narrates the alienation of close to 210 portions out of the compulsorily acquired land by government for industrial development, after an approved development plan and survey followed by the registration of new titles for the allocated industrial parcels. 18. The deponent explains the further alienation of other parcels for residential development, commonly known as Umoja 2 Estate. Again the deponent explains there was an alienation of part of the acquired land to the shareholders of the initial owner for both industrial and residential development, followed by the setting aside of public utility plots. 19. The deponent deposes that despite the forgoing the plaintifi purported to commission a parallel surveys exercise in 2014 to defeat and or suspend the aforesaid approved and authenticated survey records from the government already held by the Director of Surveys, arising from the governmentsacquisition, planning, alienation, survey, approval, authentication, and registration process from the time of compulsory acquisition to the present. 20. The 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents deponent, in view of the foregoing deposes that no prima facie case has been established by the plaintifi to be entitled to the reliefs sought in the motion before court. 21. The 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants deponent terms the deposed activities or acts in the supporting afidavit as founded on their statutory mandate, following lawfully approved or authenticated survey processes and records, which acts remain lawful. 22. The 2nd ,4th and 5th respondents depose that the defendants cannot be restrained from undertaking their lawful statutory duties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 3

page 3 of 9

23. The 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants depose that if the court stops them from exercising their statutory duties, it would impede the maintenance and updating of oficial cadastral records, prejudice holders of any validly existing titles, and shall interfere with orderly administration of land registers and survey records as set out in the Land Registration Act and the Survey Act. 24. The 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants in support of their replying afidavit rely on annexures marked WM1-103, setting out all the processes undertaken by the government since 1963 to the present. 25. The Plaintifi’s cause of action is captured in paragraph 14,15,16, 17,18,19, 20,21,22, and 23 of the plaint dated 29.9.2025. The claim is that the 1st defendant through acts of fraud, illegality, trespass and without any colour of right has encroached upon and trespassed onto the portion of the suit property and caused an unlawful excision of approximately 18.8 Ha therefrom and proceeded to allocate or cause allocation of the same under an unverified title no. LR 15400 by subdividing it fraudulently into LR Nos. 15400/1, 215400/570, whose owners have either constructed structures thereon, or are in the process of taking possession and occupation. 26. The Plaintifi prays for: a. An order directing the 4th defendant, the Director of Surveys, to cancel the illegal subdivision of L.R. No. 11379/3 to form L.R. No. 11379/4, and the subsequent unlawful amalgamation of the said L.R. No. 11379/4 with L.R. No. 11344/23 to form L.R No. 15400. b. An order declaring that the attempted inclusion and/or conversion of L.R. No. 15400 and its purported subdivisions into Nairobi Block 173 illegal, null and void, as L.R. No. 15400 was never gazetted as an old L.R. number eligible for conversion under the Land Registration (Registration Units) Order as per gazette notice number 520 issued on the 26th January 2021. c. An order directing the 2nd defendant, the Chief Land Registrar, to cancel the 1st defendant’s purported title, being L.R. No. 15400, together with all resultant subdivisions thereof, and to expunge any related entries form the land register. d. A declaration that the Plaintifi is the rightful and indefeasible owner of all that property comprised in L.R. No. 11379/3, including Nairobi Block 173, and hat any subdivisions or conversions inconsistent therewith are invalid. e. An order barring the 4th Defendant, the Director of Surveys, form processing, efiecting or recognizing any conversions of L.R. No. 15400 or its resultant subdivisions, and further directing the 4th Defendant to realign and maintain the boundaries of L.R. No. 113/3 as delineate din Deed Plan No. 86048 f. The immediate eviction of the 1st Defendant, its members, agents, servants or anyone claiming under if form any portion of L.R. No. 11379/3, including Nairobi Block 173. g. A permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its servants, employees, agents or any person claiming through it from harassing, threatening, intimidating or in any manner whatsoever interfering with the Plaintifi’s ownership, possessing, development and quiet enjoyment of L.R. No. 11379/3, including Nairobi Block 173. h. General damages for trespass, illegal occupation and loss of investment opportunities. i. interest on (h) above at court rates. j. Costs of this suit. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 4

page 4 of 9

k. 27. Any other or further relief the Honourable Court deems fits to grant in the interests of justice. The plaintifi avers that the 1st defendant has through acts of fraud and compounded acts of fraud by lodging the purported subdivision of LR No. 15400 for the ongoing land conversion into title No. Nairobi Block 173,with the help of the 2nd,and 4th defendants, notwithstanding the rights to the block held by the plaintifi as a subdivision of LR No. 11379/3. It is averred that gazette no. 520 of 26.1.2021 by the Cabinet Secretary never listed LR No. 15400 as one of those old LR Nos. subject to the conversion. The plaintifi avers that it is fearful that there may be two confiicting title numbers in circulation over the same parcel of land necessitating the courts intervention to determine and established the lawful and rightful ownership of the suit property between the plaintifi and the 1st defendant after examining the document in possession by the parties. 28. The plaintifi avers that despite repeated demands and complaints the 1st defendant has persisted in the unlawful occupation, developments and conversion attempts thereby interfering with its proprietary rights, peaceful possession and the ability to develop the suit property. 29. The plaintifi avers that it has sufiered loss out of depreciation to use occupy and develop the land, including loss of prospective investors, tenants and business opportunities based on the 1st defendant’s false claim and illegal occupation. 30. The 1st Defendant opposes the plaintifi’s suit through an undated statement of defence filed on the 9.3.2026. The 1st Defendant avers that in accordance with their land ownership rights, it legally subdivided the verified title number L.R. No. 15400 into numerous portions, specifically numbered L.R. No. 15400/1 to L.R. No. 15400/570, and proceeded to legally allocate these portions to its members, who have legally either constructed structures thereon or are in the process of legally taking possession and occupation. 31. The 1st defendant further avers that that there exists an active and previously instituted suit, being ELC Case No. 47 of 2011, involving the same parties and touching on the same subject matter, namely L.R. No. 15400, and the Plaintifi herein is a party to the said suit. 32. The 1st defendant avers that the two suits raise substantially identical questions of fact, including the legality, ownership, allocation and registration of L.R. No. 15400, thereby rendering the present suit sub judice within the meaning of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. 4. 33. The 1st defendant avers that the institution of this suit constitutes forum shopping, vexatious conduct and an abuse of the court process, as the Plaintifi has sought to re-litigate in a fresh forum matters already pending before a competent court. 34. The 1st defendant avers that the issues in dispute in ELC No. 47 of 2011 are neither concluded nor withdrawn, and allowing this matter to proceed concurrently would materially alter, complicate and prejudice the fair adjudication of the earlier suit. 35. From the foregoing primary pleadings so far on record this court is asked to issues interim orders to stop the acts complained about against the defendants. A party seeking temporary orders of injunction must meet the conditions set out in Giella vs Cassman Brown and company limited (1973) EA358 (Court of Appeal at Kampala) Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1972, namely a prima facie with a probability of success at the hearing, demonstrate reparable loss or damage, and lastly show that on a balance of probability a temporary injunction should issue. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 5

page 5 of 9

36. A prima facie case is more than an arguable case. A claimant must show that the suit raises a serious question to be tried at the hearing with likelihood of success. 37. In Mrao Limited vs First African Bank Limited & 2 Others (2003) eKLR the court said that a prima facie case is established where looking at the material before court a right has been infringed or violated to call for an explaining from the opposite party. 38. In Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others (2014) KECA 606 (KLR); Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2012 (court of Appeal at Nairobi), the court said that the party in whom the burden of proving a prima facie case lies must show a clear and a mistakable right to be protected, which is treatened by an act sought to be restrained, the invasion of the right has to be material and substantial ,and that there must be urgent necessity to prevent the irreparable damage that may result from the invasion. 39. The court said that in considering whether or not a prima facie case has been established the court does not hold a mini-trial and must not examine the case on merits, but to see to it that on the face of it, the person applying for an injunction has a right which has been or is threatened with violation. 40. The court said that applicant need not establish title and that it is enough if he can show that he has a fair and bonafide question to raised at the trial as to the existence of its right which he alleges. 41. Coming to irreparable, loss, injury or damage the court in Nguruman Supra held at their must be more than unfounded fear or apprehension on the part of the applicant, a temporary injunction being an equitable remedy is issued solely to protect great and irreparable injury which is actual, substantial and demonstrable. 42. The court said that irreparable loss is one where there is no standard by which its amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or which may not be compensated monetarily. In Paul Gitanga Wanjau vs Gathuthi Tea Factory Limited & 2 Others (2016) eKLR,irreparable loss was defined as one that cannot be repaired or where rights cannot be vindicated by damages. 43. Balance of convenience on the other hand in favour of the plaintifi refers to that if an injunction is not granted and the suit is ultimately decided in favour of the plaintifi, the inconvenience caused to the plaintifi would be greater than that which would be caused to the defendant. If any injunction is granted but ultimately dismissed as held in Pius Kipchirchir Kogo vs Frank Kimeli Tenai (2018) eKLR. 44. The purpose of granting an application for temporary injunction is to keep things in status quo till the right of the parties are decided. 45. Therefore as held in Airland Tours and Travels vs National Industries Travel Limited vs National Industrial Credit Bank Limited Civil Case No. 1234 of 2002, at an interlocutory stage, the court is not required to make any conclusive or definite findings of facts and the law on the basis of contradictory afidavit evidence or disputed proposition of the law. 46. In this suit the plaintifi has pleaded that it is the registered owner of the suit land which it has divided into several blocks out of which LR No. 15400 was purportedly created by the 4th defendant in favour of the 1st defendant and allegedly amalgamated without its consent or knowledge with a parcel belonging to the 3rd defendant, now being converted ,yet it was not among the listed eligible parcels of land for conversion under gazette No. 520 dated 26.1.2021. 47. The plaintifi pleads that if the conversion occurs it will be denied proprietorship rights, its investment opportunities will be at risk and there will be permanent loss of ownership rights. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 6

page 6 of 9

48. The plaintifi has attached paper trail showing that it lawfully owns the mother title such as a title deed, oficial search, transfer deed plan, letter to the regional surveyors dated 15.12.2021, survey report from the director of survey and the national land commission correspondence to and from its director of survey, investigation report, letter from National Land Commission to the directors of survey correspondence with the 3rd defendant and gazette notices no. 9433. 49. The burden in law is on he who alleges. The applicant is silent on when its parcel of land was illegally and fraudulently hived ofi and issued to the 1st defendant. It does not state when the trespass and encroachment commenced. The date when conversion started is not pleaded. The nature of developments on its land by the 1st defendant is not pleaded. 50. Conversion of land titles in Kenya is governed by Article 68 of the Constitution, the Land Registration Act 2012, Land Registration (general), Regulations 2017,the Land Registration (Registration Units) Orders, Legal Notice No. 277 22.11.2017,and the Survey (Electronic Cadastre transactions) regulations 2020. 51. It commenced in Nairobi with a special gazette Notice No. 11348. 52. The process entails: a. Preparation and approval of cadastral map and conversion list b. publication of the cabinet secretary of the approved conversion list and cadastral map in a gazette and two national daily newspapers. c. Lodging of complaint within 90 days upon publication of the conversion list to the land registrar. d. Registration of caution by the land registrar on the afiected property by the land registrar. e. Closing of the old register where there are no complaints and opening of new land register under LRA f. Issuance of notice to the public to apply for the replacement of titles of the old titles. g. Submission of application of replacement of titles in accordance with the notice. 53. A party aggrieved by the decision of the land registrar has a right to appeal to this court within 30 days of the registrar’s decision. In Matoke vs Kenya Commercial Bank and others (ELC No. 127 of 2017) (2026) KEELC 2240 KLR 29th April 2026 (Ruling). The court said that conversion refers to the statutory process of changing old titles numbers issued under the repealed land laws into a uniform format under the land registration act while migration refers to the transfer of all land records from the old register to the new unified register. 54. The court said that both conversion and migration shall not alter the size, ownership or interest in the land other than updating the registration for formality and record. 55. The court discussed the procedure for conversion is governed by section 6 of the land registration act and regulation 45678&9 of the land registration(general) regulations 2017. The court said that the benefit of title conversion include enhanced security tenure to avoid fraudulent titles and unification of the system of register in the legal regime, digitization with Ardhi sasa to ensure secure storage and exclusive accessibility of records, improve eficiency in land transactions and above all alignment of land registration with article 68 of the constitution. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 7

page 7 of 9

56. The court said that despite the challenges, currently, facing conversion and migration, the two key transformative reforms in Kenya Land Governance. 57. The court observed that access to information held by the state is a constitutional right and therefore many land owners in Kenya should be able to access information on the conversion and migration of titles from the old registration regime to the new legal land regime. 58. This court is aware and takes judicial notice of gazette notice No. 10357 vol CXXVII of 20th July 2025 issued pursuant to regulation 4 (4) of the land registration (regulations units order 2017) by the cabinet secretary land and physical planning notify the general public of converted parcels, seeking for complaint under form LRA 96 and from LRA 67. The Gazzette published a conversion lists under cadastral map for Nairobi/Block, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 59, 64, 65, 66, 69, 95, 103, 125, 138, 149, 166, 165, 175, 189, 206, 218, 223, 4, 5, 6, 25, 31, 34, 35, 38, 45, 68, 131, 136, 137, 192, 196, 199, 202, 221, 245, 263. 59. Similar notices were issues in gazette notice no. 11348 of 21.12.2020. Gazette no 9535 of 5th August 2022, gazette no 7006 of 17th June 2022, gazette notice no. 1706 of 23.2.2021 form the regulations conversion list and cadastral maps in respect of Nairobi land registration as at 9th march 2024 the cabinet secretary issued a notice under regulation 4 (4) of the land registration (regulation units order 2017 to the public seeking for complaints under form LRA 96 and application for registration of caution under form LRA 67 members of public were also informed of where they could conversion list and the cadastral maps including its mandatory website. 60. From the material presented in support by the plaintifi, it is crystal clear that other than making general allegations, the applicant has not supplied the court with the right information, and or disclosed to the court, if it has since inception of the alleged conversion of its parcel in 2021,exhausted the internal dispute mechanisms set out in law, before moving to court for injunctive orders to stop the 2nd ,and 4th defendants from undertaking a constructional and a statutory sanctioned process. 61. In the plaint dated 29.9.2025 at paragraph 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 there is no mention of when the encroachment by the 1st defendant occurred based on an illegally obtained title deed. Equally there are no recent oficial searches or cadastral maps showing the alleged conversion and or illegal subdivision and issuance of title regarding the suit property. 62. The defendants have raised issues of sub-judice and an illegal parallel survey undertaken by the plaintifi to suspend and or supersede an otherwise legal process following compulsory acquisition on the land since 1968.The applicant is silent on those serious allegations. 63. The court finds that the plaintifi has failed to disclose a prima facie case. In Nguruman limited vs Jan Bonde and 2 others (Supra), the court said that the 3 conditions are applied separately, distinctly, and logically. The court said that if the existence of a prima facie case is not established there can be no leap – frogging. 64. The upshot is I find no basis to grant the orders sought. The application is dismissed with costs. 65. Orders accordingly. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 HON. JUSTICE C.K NZILI JUDGE In the presence of: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 8

page 8 of 9

Court Assistant: Julius Oginga for the Applicant Mr. Kamau for the 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendant Omondi for 3rd Defendant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5245/eng@2026-07-29 9

page 9 of 9