Center for Litigation Trust v Sunnex Enterprises Limited & 8 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4818 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA COUNTY COURT NAME: MOMBASA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT CASE NUMBER: ELCLPET/E004/2026 CENTER FOR LITIGATION TRUST VS SUNNEX ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND DELGREEN LIMITED AND 7 OTHERS JUDGMENT Center For Litigation Trust (CLT) (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner has come to court stating that she is a duly registered trust organization based in Mombasa actuated by patriotism and which look into a future of Kenya as a society that strictly follows rule of law for betterment of the society. She states that she is a public-spirited organization and a human rights defender whose objectives is to promote democratic and corporate governance, non-discrimination, uphold the rule of law/constitutionalism and agitate for sustainable economic development for the prosperity and well- being of the general population in this lovely Country. The petitioner therefore brings this suit on its own behalf, on behalf of the People of Kenya and in protection of the Constitutional and statutory rights pursuant to Article 258(1)(a) and 258(1)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. She brings this petition against Sunnex Enterprises Limited a duly registered limited liability company carrying on business in Mombasa and elsewhere within the Republic of Kenya. Though there is no evidence that the 1st respondent was served. The 2nd respondent is Delgreen limited also a duly registered limited liability company carrying on business in Mombasa and elsewhere within the Republic of Kenya. The 3rd Respondent-The Chief Land Registrar is duly established under the Section 12 Land Registration Act, 2012 and responsible for overseeing inter alia land registration within the Republic of Kenya. The 4th Respondent- the Land Registrar Mombasa County is duly established under the Land Registration Act, 2012 and in charge of Mombasa Land Registry. The 5th Respondent- The Director of Surveys-duly established under the Surveys Act and responsible for land surveys and mapping within the Republic of Kenya. The 6th Respondent- The National Land Commission is a constitutional commission duly established under Article 67 of the Constitution. The 7th Respondent- Kenya Revenue Authority is a government agency duly established under the Kenya Revenue Authority and responsible for the assessment, collection and accounting for all revenues. The 8th Respondent-The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development is responsible for land administration, affordable housing, public works and urban development. The 9th Respondent-The Honourable Attorney General is the Principal Legal Government The Petitioner states that she has locus standi to interrogate and investigate the procedural propriety of acts of the Respondent that are unlawful, un-procedural and unconstitutional. According to the petitioner, the current Constitution has opened the doors of the courts very wide to welcome any person who has bona fide grounds that the Constitution has been or is threatened with contravention to approach the Court for an appropriate relief. The liberal and progressive constitution provides a broad approach that gives locus standi to any member of the public that is acting bona fide and has sufficient interest in instituting an action to redress a public wrong or injury. The broad approach ensures that any person with genuine grievances can access the seat of justice and enjoy the full measure of protection that they are entitled to under the constitution. According to the petitioner, it is settled and trite law that sanctity of title is never intended or understood to be a vehicle for fraud and illegalities and/or an avenue for unjust enrichment at public expense hence a title to property that is obtained fraudulently or illegally in violation of the provisions of the statute is not sacrosanct, cannot and does not afford or enjoy the blanket protection of the law. It is a further settled law that where property is acquired through a procedure against the law, the title cannot qualify for indefeasibility and the title subsequently issued is invalid having been acquired illegally and irregularly The petitioner relies on the case of Daudi Kiptugen vs Commissioner of Lands & 4 Others [2015] eKLR:- "...the acquisition of title cannot be construed only in the end result; the process of acquisition is material. It follows that if a document of title was not acquired through a proper process, the title itself cannot be a good title. If this were not the position then all one would need to do is to manufacture a Lease or a Certificate of Title at a backyard or the corner of a dingy street, and by virtue thereof, claim to be the rightful proprietor of the land in The petitioner has since established and received the following information:- 1. On or about 14/12/2001 the 1st Respondent was registered as the owner of all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and all the developments thereat. 2. On or about 10/3/2006 the 1st Respondent in a bid to cover its footprints subsequently sold and caused to be transferred the suit property to the 2nd Respondent 3. The foregoing was notwithstanding the fact that suit property was government land which formed part of all that Parcel of land known as Mombasa/XXVI/269 situated at Oceanic area in Kizingo, within Mombasa County, which land was on or about 1974 reserved for the then defunct East Africa Community(EAC). 4. There was erected thereat houses for the then East Africa Community(EAC) senior staff but after the EAC ceased to operate Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 together with the houses constructed thereat was vested upon the Department of Customs and Excise, Income Tax and VAT under the management and administration of Ministry of Roads, Public Works and Housing. 5. On or about 2004, Ministry of Roads, Public Works and Housing transferred to the 6th Respondent all the properties which were vested in the EAC under the Department of Customs and Excise, Income Tax and VAT Subsequently Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 was fraudulently, illegally and irregularly subdivided and/or amalgamated in total disregard of the public purpose for which it was reserved and between 1994 and 2006, it was the subject of a quick succession of transfers that saw it illegally and fraudulently change hands from the Government to private hands before ultimately being illegally and fraudulently transferred inter alia to the 1st Respondent on 14/12/2001 who also illegally and fraudulently transferred it to the 2nd Respondent on 10/3/2006. Since Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 was Government property on which there was erected public houses, it ought to have been but was never boarded for disposal in accordance with the Government Financial Regulations or procedures Chapter 19 and The Ministry of Works Circular No. 2/58 of 1st March 1958 prior to its illegal, fraudulent and irregular subdivision and/or amalgamation, alienation and/or allocation and/or transfer to private persons. Since Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 was never boarded for disposal all the houses and developments on the suit property remain Government property under the 7th Respondent, the Kenya Revenue Authority. Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 and the suit property being government land on which there were erected government houses used for public purposes therefore remained a public utility not available for alienation and/or capable of giving rise to a private proprietary interest which could confer any good, lawful and indefeasible title to the 1st and the 2nd Respondents capable of being protected by a court of law and/or capable of being protected by the Constitution or laws of this land. the 1st Respondent and subsequently the 2nd Respondent having obtained the registration of the suit property in their names fraudulently and illegally, their purported title thereto are null and void abinitio which should be canceled for having been fraudulently acquired and/or tainted by fraud. The petitioner states that on 28th August 2010, the people of Kenya promulgated and bequeathed to themselves the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Among the radical changes that the Constitution introduced, necessitated by numerous cases of open fraud and irregular allocation of public land to private and politically connected individuals touched on land and the environment. Article 67 of the Constitution established the National Land Commission, the 5th Respondent, with among other functions, the duty to "initiate investigations, on its own initiative or on a complaint, into present or historical land injustices and recommend appropriate redress." By dint of Article 68 (c) (v) Parliament was directed to enact legislation that would among other things "enable review of all grants or dispositions of public land to establish their propriety or legality". Pursuant thereto, Parliament enacted the National Land Commission Act, No. 5 of 2012, to give effect to the Constitution and to operationalize the 5th Respondent and by Section 14 (1) of the Act, the 5th Respondent was empowered and required, within five years of the commencement of the Act, on its own motion or upon a complaint by the national or a county government, a community or an individual, to review all grants and dispositions of public land to establish their propriety or legality. Articles 67 and 68 (c) (v) of the Constitution and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act thereby empowers the 5th Respondent to review all grants and dispositions of public land to confirm their propriety and legality. In the circumstances, where land which was previously public was registered as private land, the Commission was entitled to investigate the process by which the land was converted to private land. Despite the powers conferred to it to review all grants and dispositions of public land to confirm their propriety and legality by dint of Articles 67 and 68 (c) (v) of the Constitution and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act, 5th Respondent has abdicated its mandate by failing to investigate the process by which the suit property was converted from government land to private land and/or commence measures to recover the suit property but has instead allowed the 2nd Respondent to continue occupying and enjoying possession of the suit property which is government land on which there is erected government houses used for public purposes. That Article 10 of the Constitution sets out national values and principles of governance that bind all state officers, state organs, public officers and all persons are required to apply the national values and principles of governance, including inter alia the rule of law, participation of the people, social justice, equity, non-discrimination, protection of the marginalized, good governance, integrity, transparency, accountability and sustainable development. Article 10 of the Constitution obligated the Respondents to apply and be guided the national values and principles of governance set out in Article 10 of the Constitution which include inter alia, transparency, accountability and fair administrative action. By dint of Article 3 of the constitution of Kenya the Respondents have an obligation to respect, uphold and defend the constitution. The petitioner contends that in the instant case there exists a breach and/or threatened breach or contravention of law and the constitution by the Respondents, which requires the intervention of this honourable court. There is a further threat to the violation of the Constitution and indeed the Constitution has indeed been violated by the Respondents hence this Petition. That the people of the Republic of Kenya did not enact the Constitution in vain and/or Chapter 6 of the Constitution is not an abstract and hollow pronouncement hence this Honorable court should not countenance the fragrant breach of the Constitution and the law. The petitioner prays to this court to determine the following issues - 1. Whether Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 was ever boarded for disposal in accordance with the Government Financial Regulations or procedures Chapter 19 and The Ministry of Works Circular No. 2/58 of 1st March 1958? 2. Whether the subdivision, amalgamation, alienation and/or allocation of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 was fraudulent, irregular, unlawful illegal? 3. Whether transfer by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent of all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat was fraudulent, irregular, unlawful illegal? 4. Whether all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat are protected under Article 40 of the Constitution? 5. Whether the title over all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 should be cancelled? The petitioner ultimately prays for orders that - 6. A DECLARATION THAT since Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/ 269 was never boarded for disposal in accordance with the Government Financial Regulations or procedures Chapter 19 and The Ministry of Works Circular No. 2/58 of 1st March 1958, all the houses and developments on all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 remain Government property under the 7th Respondent, the Kenya Revenue Authority; 7. A DECLARATION THAT all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat are public land within the meaning of Article 62 of the Constitution. 1. A DECLARATION THAT all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat are not protected under Article 40 of the Constitution and should automatically vest to the 5th respondent pursuant to Article 62(2) of the Constitution. 2. AN ORDER directing the 2nd Respondent to voluntarily surrender to the 6th respondent, the National Land Commission all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat and IN DEFAULT thereof the 2nd Respondent be forcibly evicted therefrom. 3. A DECLARATION THAT the subdivision, amalgamation, alienation and/or allocation, acquisition and/or subsequent and transfer to the 1st and 2nd Respondents of all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat was fraudulent, irregular, unlawful. illegal and null and void ab initio; 4. AN ORDER directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the Chief Land Registrar and the Mombasa County Registrar to rectify the register and cancel the title over all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015. 5. AN ORDER directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the Chief Land Registrar and the Mombasa County Registrar to rectify the register and register all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat to the 6th Respondent, the Kenya Revenue Authority. 6. AN ORDER directing the 5th Respondent, the Director of Surveys to cancel and expunge all survey plans, computations, field notes, deed plans and survey records over all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015, 7. AN ORDER permanent injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent by itself, its authorized agents, servants, employees, assignees and/or otherwise whomsoever from entering, developing, occupying, remaining occupation, selling, transferring, disposing and/or dealing in any other manner whatsoever with all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat situated at Oceanic area in Kizingo, within Mombasa County. 8. THAT the Honourable Court makes any other ancillary orders that it may deem fit and just for proper and effective execution of its orders. The second respondent filed a replying affidavit through Ashok Labhshanker Doshi, a Director of the 2nd Respondent, DELGREEN LIMITED. He states that the subject Petition is vague, generalized and fails to disclose with precision the specific constitutional provisions allegedly violated, the act complained of, and the manner of the alleged infringement. That a constitutional petition must meet the threshold set out in established jurisprudence, including the requirement for precision in pleading constitutional violations. There exist pending and consolidated suits before this Honourable Court being Mombasa ELC Nos. 55 of 2009, ELC No. 21 of 2023, ELC No. 22 of 2023 and ELC No. 25 of 2023 involving the same subject matter and issues relating to ownership, possession and occupation of the property. The present Petition is therefore duplicative and amounts to a multiplicity of suits over the same subject matter already seized of by this Court and therefore it fails foul of the subjudice rule. The 2nd respondent contends that the Petitioner has deliberately failed to disclose the existence of the said consolidated proceedings, thereby engaging in material non-disclosure. The Petition is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court as it seeks to re-litigate issues already properly before the Court through ordinary civil proceedings. The Petitioner is improperly attempting to constitutionalize a pure land dispute in order to circumvent the established procedural framework under the Environment and Land Court Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. THAT the Petitioner has no locus standi to institute and/or maintain the present Petition as against the Respondents in respect of the suit property as it has not demonstrated that it is clothed with such a mandate. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any proprietary, contractual or statutory interest capable of sustaining the present proceedings. That in the other existing ongoing proceedings before this Honourable Court, being ELC No. 55 of 2008 (as consolidated), Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) is asserting a competing claim over the same subject parcels of land forming the subject of this Petition and is actually a Plaintiff by dint of the counterclaim it has filed in the said suit. THAT the said entity is already a party in all the related suits and is actively litigating its interest in the same property. THAT the existence of parallel claims over the same subject matter renders the present Petition premature, misconceived and an abuse of the court process. According to the 2nd respondent, the Petitioner herein is engaged in a multiplicity of proceedings and forum shopping by instituting a constitutional petition in respect of a dispute already pending determination in consolidated ELC suits involving all necessary and interested parties and therefore, the continued prosecution of this Petition will expose this Honourable Court to the risk of conflicting findings on ownership and proprietary rights over the same property. The issues raised herein are purely proprietary and are already being ventilated in the consolidated suits, and the inclusion of constitutional language does not convert the dispute into a constitutional cause. Directions were issued by this Honourable Court on 6th March 2026 requiring the parties to file their respective responses and written submissions. However, upon perusal of the Court Tracking System, it is evident that the 1st Respondent, Sunnex Enterprises Limited, has not been served with the Petition and the accompanying pleadings to date. The petitioner appears to have lost interest in the matter as he never filed submissions and has not been appearing on mentions. The 2nd respondent submits that this Honourable Court cannot properly issue orders affecting the rights and interests of a Respondent who has neither been served nor made aware of the proceedings, as doing so would offend the rules of natural justice and the constitutional right to a fair hearing. The 2nd respondent submits that the petition is fatally defective, misconceived, and constitutes an abuse of the court process as it fails to disclose any precise constitutional violations, was brought without locus standi and relates to matters already pending in consolidated suits being ELC No. 21 of 2023, ELC No. 22 of 2023, ELC No. 25 of 2023 and ELC No. 55 of 2008. The 2nd respondent contends that the petition attempts to constitutionalize a pure land dispute and overlooks the existence of competing claims, including one by a statutory body (the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA)), already before this court. On Locus Standi, the 2nd respondent submits that, it is a settled principle that a party must demonstrate a sufficient legal interest before instituting proceedings. He refers to the case of Alfred Njau & 5 others v City Council of Nairobi [1983] eKLR, the court held that locus standi is the right to appear before a court and is limited to persons with sufficient interest in the subject matter. The Supreme Court, in Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta v Nairobi Star Publications Limited [2013] eKLR, emphasized that courts will not entertain proceedings that are speculative, abstract, or instituted without a demonstrable legal interest, as this amounts to an abuse of the court process. The 2nd respondent argues that in the present case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated any registered interest in the suit property or any contractual or proprietary right and any direct legal injury capable of enforcement. Accordingly, the Petition is incompetent for want of locus standi. On failure to meet the constitutional pleading threshold, the 2nd respondent argues that the law is settled that constitutional petitions must be pleaded with reasonable precision. In Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 4 of 1979) [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR) the court held that a Petitioner must clearly set out: 1. The constitutional provisions violated; 2. The manner of violation; and 3. The resultant injury. This principle was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Mumo Matemu v. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance (2013) eKLR, where the court stressed that precision is not a technicality but a substantive requirement founded on constitutional principles. Further affirmation was made in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Ltd & 5 others (2014) eKLR, where the Supreme Court held that constitutional litigation must be properly grounded and not speculative. The present Petition is vague, generalized and fails to identify: 1. The specific rights allegedly violated; 2. The factual basis of the alleged infringement; and 3. Any actionable constitutional injury. The 2nd respondent submits that it therefore fails the constitutional threshold and is incompetent. On subjudice rule and abuse of court, the 2nd respondent argues that there exist pending and consolidated suits, being: 1. ELC No. 21 of 2023; 2. ELC No. 22 of 2023; 3. ELC No. 25 of 2023; and 4. ELC No. 55 of 2008 The said suits involve the 5. The same parcel of land 6. The same parties 7. The same issues of ownership, possession and occupation. Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibits concurrent proceedings where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit. In Republic v Kariuki & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E045 of 2020) [2020] KEHC 10142 (KLR) the court stated: "The sub judice rule like other maxims of law has a salutary purpose. The basic purpose and the underlying object of sub judice is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and the same relief. This is to pin down the parties to one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings." At Paragraph 29; "The uncompromising manner in which courts have consistently enforced the sub judice rule was best explained in Thiba Min Hydro Co. Ltd v Josphat Karu Ndwiga,[13] which held that it is not the form in which the suit is framed that determines whether it is sub judice, rather it is the substance of the suit, and that, there can be no justification in having the two cases being heard in parallel to each other. I find no justification at to sustain the instant suit. This position extinguishes Mr. Ochiel's argument that the instant suit is filed under Article 22 of the Constitution and that it raises constitutional issues." Additionally, the presence of Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) as a Plaintiff in the counterclaim in the consolidated suits further demonstrates competing legal claims already under determination by the court. The Petitioner's attempt to litigate parallel proceedings is therefore: 1. Sub judice; 2. An abuse of the court process; and 3. Contrary to orderly adjudication. On improper constitutionalization of a land dispute, this dispute herein is purely proprietary in nature, relating to land ownership, occupation and title. Courts have consistently held that parties cannot convert ordinary land disputes into constitutional petitions merely to gain a procedural advantage. In Bernard Murage v. Fine Serve Africa Ltd & Others (2015) eKLR, the court held that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked where there exists an adequate alternative remedy. On material non-disclosure and forum shopping the 2nd respondent contends that the Petitioner has failed to disclose: 1. The existence of the consolidated ELC suits; 2. The competing claim by KRA and other parties. This non-disclosure is material and intended to mislead the court. Such conduct amounts to forum shopping and disentitles the Petitioner to equitable relief. It is therefore in the interests of justice that the Petition be dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent. Analysis and Determination I have considered the petition and the response by the 2nd respondent and it is my view that the petition is an attempt by the petitioner to recover land on behalf of the Kenya Revenue Authority and the Ethics and Anti -Corruption Commission. Recovery of public land in Kenya is led by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), utilizing the Environment and Land Court to cancel fraudulent titles and revert public property to the state. Key actions involve investigations, court recovery suits, and title cancellations. The Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission (EACC) recovers public land in Kenya using key legal provisions including Section 11(1)(j) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, Article 62 of the Constitution of Kenya, and the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) Section 11 of the EACC ACT PROVIDES 11. Additional functions of the Commission (1)In addition to the functions of the Commission under Article 252 and Chapter Six of the Constitution, the Commission shall—(a)in relation to State officers,—(i)develop and promote standards and best practices in integrity and anti-corruption;(ii)develop a code of ethics;(b)work with other State and public offices in the development and promotion of standards and best practices in integrity and anti-corruption;(c)receive complaints on the breach of the code of ethics by public officers;(d)investigate and recommend to the Director of Public Prosecutions the prosecution of any acts of corruption, bribery or economic crimes or violation of codes of ethics or other matter prescribed under this Act or any other law enacted pursuant to Chapter Six of the Constitution;(e)recommend appropriate action to be taken against State officers or public officers alleged to have engaged in unethical conduct;(f)oversee the enforcement of codes of ethics prescribed for public officers;(g)advise, on its own initiative, any person on any matter within its functions;(h)raise public awareness on ethical issues and educate the public on the dangers of corruption and enlist and foster public support in combating corruption but with due regard to the requirements of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes (Cap. 65) as to confidentiality;(i)subject to Article 31 of the Constitution, monitor the practices and procedures of public bodies to detect corrupt practices and to secure the revision of methods of work or procedures that may be conducive to corrupt practices; and(j)institute and conduct proceedings in court for purposes of the recovery or protection of public property, or for the freeze or confiscation of proceeds of corruption or related to corruption, or the payment of compensation, or other punitive and disciplinary measures including proceedings for the recovery of property or proceeds of corruption located outside Kenya. The petitioner prays for the following orders namely:- 1. AN ORDER directing the 2nd Respondent to voluntarily surrender to the 6th respondent, the National Land Commission all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat and IN DEFAULT thereof the 2nd Respondent be forcibly evicted therefrom. 2. A DECLARATION THAT the subdivision, amalgamation, alienation and/or allocation, acquisition and/or subsequent and transfer to the 1st and 2nd Respondents of all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat was fraudulent, irregular, unlawful. illegal and null and void ab initio; 3. AN ORDER directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the Chief Land Registrar and the Mombasa County Registrar to rectify the register and cancel the title over all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015. 4. AN ORDER directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the Chief Land Registrar and the Mombasa County Registrar to rectify the register and register all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat to the 6th Respondent, the Kenya Revenue Authority. 5. AN ORDER directing the 5th Respondent, the Director of Surveys to cancel and expunge all survey plans, computations, field notes, deed plans and survey records over all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015, 6. AN ORDER permanent injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent by itself, its authorized agents, servants, employees, assignees and/or otherwise whomsoever from entering, developing, occupying, remaining occupation, selling, transferring, disposing and/or dealing in any other manner whatsoever with all that property comprising of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/1081, Mombasa/XXVI/1082 and Mombasa/XXVI/1015 and the developments thereat situated at Oceanic area in Kizingo, within Mombasa County. The prayers sought by the petitioner are principally within the ambit of the EACC under the provisions of Section 11 of the EACC Act. The import of the above is that the petitioner has no power to recover public land on behalf of the government as such power is bestowed to the EACC. The upshot of the above is that the petitioner lacks standing. Therefore on the issue of Locus Standi, I do find that the petitioner lacks standing. On the issue of sub-judice and abuse of the process of court, I do agree with the 2nd respondent’s counsel that there are pending suits between the same parties that were filed earlier in this court. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the suits because he is a public spited person and there should be aware that a public body being Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission and Kenya Revenue Authority are in this court fighting to recover the same land. There exist pending and consolidated suits, being, ELC No. 21 of 2023; ELC No. 22 of 2023; ELC No. 25 of 2023; and ELC No. 55 of 2008 which involve the the same parcel of land, the same parties, the same issues of ownership, possession and occupation. In Republic v Kariuki & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E045 of 2020) [2020] KEHC 10142 (KLR) the court stated: "The sub judice rule like other maxims of law has a salutary purpose. The basic purpose and the underlying object of sub judice is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action, same subject matter and the same relief. This is to pin down the parties to one litigation so as to avoid the possibility of contradictory verdicts by two courts in respect of the same relief and is aimed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings." Having found that the petitioner has no locus standi and that the petition is an abuse of the court process, I have no reason to entertain it further and I do dismiss it with costs. SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. JUSTICE ANTONY O. OMBWAYO** Mombasa Environment and Land Court Environment and Land Court Date: 2026-07-27 11:16:49