https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1101

Cabin Crew Investment Ltd v Kenya Medical Training College & 4 others (Civil Application E005 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1101 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1101 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application E005 of 2021 F Tuiyott, EC Mwita & LM Njuguna, JJA June 12, 2026 Between Cabin Crew Investment Limited Applicant and Kenya Medical Training College 1st Respondent The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Urban Development 2nd Respondent The Registrar Of Titles 3rd Respondent The National Land Commission 4th Respondent The Attorney General 5th Respondent (Being an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya and stay of execution arising from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Karanja, Murgor & Sichale, JJ.A) dated 23rd September 2021 Civil Appeal 441 of 2019 ) Ruling 1.By way of notice of motion application dated 12th October 2021 brought pursuant to the provisions of Article 163 (4)(b) of the Constitution, rules 4, 5 (2)(b), 39(a), 40 (b) and 47 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and Rule 33(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, the applicant has moved this Court for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court delivered on 23rd September 2021. The applicant also seeksan order for stay of execution of the judgment and decree of this Court pending the hearing and determination of the instant application. 2.The application is supported by the undated affidavit of the director of the applicant company, Mr. Kennedy Ondieki Orangi. There are 13 grounds in support, summarized as follows: that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court involves a matter of general public importance that transcends the private interests of the parties in dispute; that the intended appeal raises points of law; and that the application for certification has been occasioned by a state of uncertainty in law arising from contradictory judgments of this Court being the cases of Charles Karathe Kiare & 2 Others vs. Administrators of the Estate of John Wallace Mathare (deceased) & 5 Others (2013) eKLR and Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi & Another vs. Attorney General & 6 Others (2012) eKLR, on indefeasibility of title. 3.The application was canvassed through the applicant’s written submissions dated 22nd October, 2025, which were also orally highlighted. The applicant seeks certification from this Court to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 163 (4) (b) of the Constitution, and submits that the criteria for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as enunciated in the case of Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs. Giovanni Gnecchi- Ruscone (2013) KESC 11(KLR), have been fulfilled. 4.The applicant contends that a matter of general public importance concerning the validity and protection of registered land titles and the circumstances under which such titles may be cancelled, where the allocation is alleged to have been unlawful, has arisen. The applicant submits that this Court’s decision undermines the principles of indefeasibility of title and further violates the constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 40 of the Constitution. 5.The applicant further argues that the decision of this Court is inconsistent with earlier decisions, being Charles Karathe Kiare & 2 Others vs. Administrators of the Estate of John Wallace Mathare (deceased) & 5 Others (2013) eKLR and Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi & Another vs. Attorney General & 6 Others (2012) eKLR, on the protection of registered titles. In particular, the applicant relies on the decisions that it submits affirmed the principle that a registered proprietor is entitled to the protection of the law unless fraud or illegality is directly attributable to that proprietor. The applicant contends that the impugned judgment departs from those authorities by invalidating its title despite the absence of evidence that it participated in fraud or illegality. The applicant, therefore, urges this Court to grant leave for the matter to be considered by the Supreme Court. 6.Placing reliance on the case of Dina Management Limited vs. County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (2023) KESC 30 (KLR), the applicant submits that the cancellation of its title raises a legal question regarding the scope and extent of the State’s responsibility to protect purchasers who rely on Government land records, such as a Certificate of Official Search. 7.The respondents did not file any responses to the application, though they were all served. 8.The facts preceding this application are that, on 23rd September 2021, the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Bor, J.) rendered a judgment and decree in favour of the 1st respondent (“KMTC”) in ELC Case No.1162 of 2013, which concerned the ownership of LR No. 209/14277, “the suit property”. Evidence before the trial court was that, by a letter dated 19th December 1996, the Commissioner of Land allotted the suit property to the 1st respondent for purposes of advancing its public mandate. The offer was acknowledged vide letter dated 29th January 1997, which was followed up with payment of the requisite fees on 6th February 1997. The 1st respondent left the matter to the relevant authorities to process the grant, but its staff members physically occupied the suit property. 9.Later, the Commissioner of Lands subdivided the land into several plots and allocated them to private developers, and the suit property was allocated to the applicant, who was issued a title, grant No. IR85965. KMTC challenged the decision seeking cancellation of the private title, and in the end, the trial court held that land held or occupied by a Government agency, as KMTC did not constitute unalienated Government land even where no title had been issued; therefore, the Commissioner of Lands had no power to allot the suit property to the applicant. 10.On appeal, this Court (Karanja, Murgor & Sichale, JJ.A), affirmed the decision of the ELC that the allocation of the suit property to the applicant after the Commissioner of Lands had already validated the 1st respondent’s allocation by accepting the requisite payment, and without revoking the allotment was invalid. This Court held that neither the letter of allotment dated 23rd April, 2001, nor the resultant Certificate of Title could confer a good title of the suit property to the applicant. 11.Having considered the application and submissions by the applicant, the only issue for determination is whether it meets the threshold for certification to the Supreme Court. 12.The principles governing certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution were established in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs. Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone (supra), that to succeed in an application for certification, the applicant must demonstrate that the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance, transcends personal interest of the parties, raises substantial questions of law, and has significant bearing on public interest as follows:“a matter of general public importance warranting the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction would be a matter of law or fact, provided only that: its impacts and consequences are substantial, broad-based, transcending the litigation-interests of the parties, and bearing upon the public interest. As the categories constituting the public interest are not closed, the burden falls on the intending appellant to demonstrate that the matter in question carries specific elements of real public interest and concern.” 13.This Court in Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Unions vs. Kenya Export Floriculture and allied Workers’ Union (Kefhau) represented by its Promoters David Benedict Omulama & 9 Others (2018) eKLR stated as follows:“The principles set out in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs. Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone (supra) to determine whether a matter is of general public importance included:i.For a case to be certified as one involving a matter of general public importance, the intending appellant must satisfy the Court that the issue to be canvassed on appeal is one the determination of which transcends the circumstances of the particular case, and has a significant bearing on the public interest;ii.Where the matter in respect of which certification is sought raises a point of law, the intending appellant must demonstrate that such a point is a substantial one, the determination of which will have a significant bearing on the public interest;iii.Such question or questions of law must have arisen in the Court or Courts below, and must have been the subject of judicial determination;iv.Where the application for certification has been occasioned by a state of uncertainty in the law, arising from contradictory precedents, the Supreme Court may either resolve the uncertainty, as it may determine, or refer the matter to the Court of Appeal for its determination;v.Mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice, a matter most apt for resolution in the lower superior courts, is not a proper basis for granting certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court; the matter to be certified for a final appeal in the Supreme Court, must still fall within the terms of Article 163(4) (b) of the Constitution;vi.The intending applicant has an obligation to identify and concisely set out the specific elements of general public importance which he or she attributes to the matter for which certification is sought;vii.Determination of facts in contests between parties are not, by themselves, a basis for granting certification for an appeal before the Supreme Court.” 14.Applying these principles to the present matter, the current dispute revolves around the applicant’s claim over the suit property. This Court found that the land had been allocated earlier to KMTC for public purposes before the issuance of the applicant’s title and was therefore not available for reallocation to the applicant. While the applicant invokes the doctrines of indefeasibility of title and bona fide purchaser, and claims that it seeks to get clarity from the Supreme Court on the scope and extent of the responsibility of the State to a purchaser who relies on Government records in a purchase, this issue has already been settled in the case of Dina Management Ltd vs. County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (supra), where the issue before the Supreme Court was the validity of titles arising from allocation of public land, and the court emphasized that a title obtained through an unlawful process cannot be deemed indefeasible. In the matter, the Supreme Court held as follows:“Article 40 of the Constitution entitles every person to the right to property, subject to the limitations set out therein. Article 40(6) limits the rights as not extending them to any property that has been found to have been unlawfully acquired. Having found that the 1st registered owner did not acquire title regularly, the ownership of the suit property by the appellant thereafter cannot therefore be protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. The root of the title having been challenged, as we already noted above the appellant could not benefit from the doctrine of bona fide purchaser.” 15.Similarly, the present dispute concerns land that was already allocated for a public purpose to KMTC. The issue was not merely whether the applicant relied on official records, but whether the land was available for allocation at all at the time the applicant obtained its title, which both superior courts found it was not. 16.That being said, the applicant has not demonstrated that the impugned decision creates a new or uncertain point of law so as to have a significant bearing on public interest. The applicant’s grievance is essentially dissatisfaction with the outcome of its appeal, which does not meet the Constitutional threshold for certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution. 17.In the end, we find that the application has no merits and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 18.Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.F. TUIYOTT................................JUDGE OF APPEALE. C. MWITA................................JUDGE OF APPEALL. NJUGUNA................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a True copy of the originalSignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR