https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4113

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4113

The objection failed because the respondents did not place before the court evidence showing when and how the adjudication occurred, so the court could not conclude that section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act applied; further, the material provided did not establish a pending previous suit involving the same...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 4113 (KLR)
Parties
1st Petitioner: Jack Kamundia; 2nd Petitioner: Mathew Lepish Meshami; 3rd Petitioner: Lerish Kupano Meshani; 4th Petitioner: Lelwa Nanto; 5th Petitioner: Francis Iyan Piroris; 6th Petitioner: John Masinte Meshami; 7th Petitioner: Lucy Nyokabi Batili; 8th Petitioner: Loishurua Piroris Kamundia; 9th Petitioner: Mariamu Naitutaai; 10th Petitioner: Leah Setuka Kamundia; 11th Petitioner: Moses Mwenda Mkungu; 12th Petitioner: Alice Namunyak Lepish; 13th Petitioner: Josephine Komeiyan Meshami; 14th Petitioner: Meshack Lepish Meshami; 15th Petitioner: Wilson Losotu Wanto; 16th Petitioner: Ultwesha Paul Nturur; 17th Petitioner: Esther Meron Wanto; 18th Petitioner: Robert Ntokoine Wanto; 19th Petitioner: Francis Ekiru Lalwed; 20th Petitioner: Lekutuk Solomon Piroris; 21st Petitioner: Grace Pelianto Oreu; 22nd Petitioner: Charity Njoki Piroris; 23rd Petitioner: Grace Narangu Meshami; 24th Petitioner: Seeyio Meshami; 1st Respondent: Registered Trustees of Munishoi Group Ranch; 2nd Respondent: Director of Social Development Laikipia; 3rd Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the petitioners.
Judges
["LN Mbugua"]
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Land Adjudication, Section 30 Land Adjudication Act, Sub Judice, Community Land, Adjudication Consent, Costs
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Land Law Civil Procedure Environment and Land Law Preliminary Objection Jurisdiction Land Adjudication Section 30 Land Adjudication Act +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Kamundia

1st Petitioner

Mathew Lepish Meshami

2nd Petitioner

Lerish Kupano Meshani

3rd Petitioner

Lelwa Nanto

4th Petitioner

Francis Iyan Piroris

5th Petitioner

John Masinte Meshami

6th Petitioner

Lucy Nyokabi Batili

7th Petitioner

Loishurua Piroris Kamundia

8th Petitioner

Mariamu Naitutaai

9th Petitioner

Leah Setuka Kamundia

10th Petitioner

Moses Mwenda Mkungu

11th Petitioner

Alice Namunyak Lepish

12th Petitioner

Josephine Komeiyan Meshami

13th Petitioner

Meshack Lepish Meshami

14th Petitioner

Wilson Losotu Wanto

15th Petitioner

Ultwesha Paul Nturur

16th Petitioner

Esther Meron Wanto

17th Petitioner

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

Registered Trustees of Munishoi Group Ranch

1st Respondent

Director of Social Development Laikipia

2nd Respondent

The Honourable Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the court lacked jurisdiction for want of consent under section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act
  2. 2 Whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of sub judice under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
  3. 3 Whether the petition was incompetent or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The objection failed because the respondents did not place before the court evidence showing when and how the adjudication occurred, so the court could not conclude that section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act applied; further, the material provided did not establish a pending previous suit involving the same constitutional issues, so sub judice was not proved. The preliminary objection therefore lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the petitioners.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 10 June 2025 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection are awarded to the petitioners.