Kamau v Munyoki & another (Environment and Land Case E082 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 42 (KLR) (15 January 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 42 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE NAKURU LAW COURTS ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E082 OF 2024 PA NDEGE, SPM JANUARY 15, 2026 BETWEEN SAMUEL NGOTHO KAMAU ................................................................... PLAINTIFF AND EMMANUEL MWONGELA MUNYOKI ....................................... 1ST DEFENDANT LAND REGISTRAR NAKURU ..................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. Before this court for determination is the Plaintifi’s suit filed vide a Plaint on 11/04/2024 seeking the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the plaintifi is the legal and registered owner of the parcel of land known as Nakuru/ Municipality Block 15/801 measuring approximately 0.04 ha in Nakuru county. b. An order for cancellation of the title registered in the names of the 1st Defendant. c. Costs of the suit d. Any other relief this honorable court deems fair and just. 2. The Defendants were duly served with the summons to enter appearance together with the accompanying pleadings where they entered appearance through the firm of Noah Onsomu & Company Advocates for the 1st Defendant and the Attorney General for the 2nd Defendant, nevertheless, they chose not to participate in the hearing of the matter. 3. During the hearing, the plaintifi adopted his witness statement dated 05/03/2024 as his evidence-inchief. The same was admitted as PEXH. NO.1. He stated that he is the legal owner (lessee) of all that parcel of land known as Nakuru/ Municipality Block 15/801 having been allotted the same in the year 1996. The allotment letter dated 01/087/1996 was admitted as PEXH. No. 3. Later on the plaintifi https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/42/eng@2026-01-15 1
page 1 of 2
was issued with a lease and a certificate of lease in his name on 23/04/2009. The same was produced as PEXH. NO. 18. The plaintifi testified that he was in occupation of the subject land and even produced the rate payment invoices in favour of the county council. The plaintifi indicated that the 1st Defendant had gone to the DCIO complaining about the plaintifi’s title. That the DCIO wrote latter cancelling the plaintifi’s title but that the same was revoked by the High Court in Judicial Review E006 Of 2022 (republic Vs Odpp & 2 Others). That the county government confirmed that the plaintifi was the owner of the land parcel. That the 1st Defendant was given a chance to prove that he was the owner of the land or how he got his title but failed to do so. 4. The above evidence has not been challenged in any way. There was no evidence presented by the defendant to controvert the sane. I thus do hereby rely on the same to find that the plaintifi has been able to prove his case against the defendants to the required standard and do hereby allow the suit as prayed with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 15TH DAY OF JANUARY ,2026 ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGE SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE In the presence of; Plaintifi’s Counsel: Nyabuto h/b Gatheca 1st Defendant’s Counsel: n/a 2nd Defendants Counsel: n/a Plaintifi: n/a 1st Defendant: n/a https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/42/eng@2026-01-15 2
page 2 of 2