https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3713

Kinanta & 2 others v Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3713 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3713 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris Environment and Land Petition E003 of 2024 MN Mwanyale, J June 18, 2026 Between Daniel Kipintoi Kinanta 1st Applicant Leboi Rolex Moriaso 2nd Applicant Anna Sukuta Kantuli 3rd Applicant and The Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development 1st Respondent The National Land Commission 2nd Respondent Chief Land Registrar 3rd Respondent Office of the Land Registrar Kilgoris 4th Respondent The Director Kenya Survey 5th Respondent The Hon. Attorney General 6th Respondent County Government of Narok 7th Respondent Land Adjudication Officer, Transmara West 8th Respondent Judgment 1.The Petitioners, Daniel Kipingoi Kinanta, Leboi Rolex Moriaso and Anna Sukuta Kantuli petitioned to this court against the Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development The National Land Commission, the Chief Land Registrar, the Office of the Lands Registrar Kilgoris, the Director Kenya Survey, the Honourable Government of Narok and Land Adjudication Officer Transmara West. 2.The petition sought the following reliefs against the Respondents;a.A declaration that 1st to 8th Respondents have violated the Petitioners’ rights to human dignity under Articles 28 of the Constitution and the right not to be subjected to any form of violence or be treated in a cruel inhuman or degrading manner under Article 29(l) and (f) of the Constitution.b.A declaration that the 1st to 8th Respondents have violated the Petitioners’ right to own property under Article 40(3) of the Constitution.c.A declaration that the 1st to 8th Respondents have violated the Petitioners’ right to equal benefit of law under Article 27 of the Constitution, right to a fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution and the right to access justice under Article 48 of the Constitution.d.A declaration that the 1st to 8th Respondent violated the Petitioners’ right to own property under Article 40 of the Constitution.e.An order compelling 4th and 5th Respondents to issue out title to the Respective beneficiaries per the register by the Adjudication Section Committee that appointed on 13th March 1989 with respect to Kimintet Adjudication Section E & F.f.An order compelling the 4th and 5th Respondents to cancel all titles issued pursuant to the Adjudication Committee register prepared by the Adjudication Committee on 7th July 2020 with respect to Kimintet Adjudication Sections E and F.g.A declaration that the decision of the 8th Respondent (Land Adjudication Officer, Transmara West) made on 6th February 2020 is unconstitutional and was made in total violation of the Petitioner’s right to property.h.A declaration that the decision of the 8th of the 8th Respondent (Land Adjudication Officer, Transmara West) made on 7th February 2020 is unconstitutional and was made in total violation of the Petitioners’ right to property.i.A declaration that the Government has abdicated its role of protecting people and their properties and has become escapist by acting on individual commands, whims, sweet and caprice.j.Any other appropriate reliefs that the court deems fit.k.An award of damages for pain and suffering, humiliation and distress visited upon the Petitioners.l.Costs of this Petition. 3.The Petitioners filed an application dated 8th July 2025 for joinder of initially the Chief Lands Adjudication and Settlement Officer but later amended to be the Director of Lands Adjudication and Settlement, which application was allowed on 31.07.2025 on the aspect of the joinder and hence the Director of Lands Adjudication and Settlement is now the 9th Respondent. 4.The other prayers in the said application dated 8th July 2025, which include a prayer for the 9th Respondent to furnish Petitioners with a certified copy of Kimintet Adjudication report and register for Sections E & F by the Adjudication Committee appointed on the 13th of March 1989 were disposed off vide the Ruling dated 8th December 2025. Petitioner’s Case 5.It is averred that the Petitioners are;i.On the verge of being evicted from their parcels of land they have occupied since time immemorial since the titles are being issued to strangers and without following the due process.ii.That the Petitioners are members of Kimintet Adjudication Section E and F which was previously part of Kimintet Adjudication Section B.iii.That Kimintet was declared an Adjudication Section on 29th October 1986 and as such an Adjudication Committee was appointed to foresee the entire process.iv.That surprisingly on 6th February 2020 the 8th Respondent caused to be published a declaration of Kimintet E and F as an Adjudication Section within the meaning of Section 5 of the Land Adjudication Act notwithstanding the fact that they both fall within the geographical area of Kimintet sublocation of Siria East Location of Transmara that was declared an Adjudication Section on 29th October 1986.v.That the act of declaring Kimintet E and F by 8th Respondents and subsequently selecting a committee to deal with survey, demarcation and allocation of land was done with hidden selfish motives with the sole aim of denying the actual original owners the right to own their properties and have such properties allocated to outsiders as such the original owners are now at the mercy of the new land owners and might be evicted.vi.The Petitioners and several other members were recognized and their names formed part of the first adjudication committee register by the committee that was formed pursuant to the declaration of 29th October 1986.vii.That on 7th July 2020, the 8th Respondent purported to appoint a Land Adjudication Committee for Kimintet E and F yet there existed a Land Adjudication Committee appointed in March 1989 for Kimintet Adjudication Section of Siria East location covering the area that the 8th Respondent is purporting to declare as an Adjudication Section thus causing confusion as to who should be entitled of the said parcel of land.viii.That the Petitioners and several others were never consulted prior to the appointment of the second Adjudication Committee on 7th July 2020 and as such there was confusion as to which of the two committees is legitimate putting into consideration that another committee had been appointed way back on 13th March 1989.ix.That the Petitioners and several other members were asked to pay money by the Respondents for purposes of processing their respective titles but till now they have never received their titles.x.That the complaints by the Petitioners with respect to Kimintet Adjudication Section to the Respondents has always fallen on deaf ears since the year 2016, as they were all opposed to the second subsequent declaration and formation of a parallel Adjudication Section Committee.xi.That the Petitioners and several others have lived and occupied areas of Kimintet Adjudication Section for so many years prior tot eh declarations and formation of the two rival committees.xii.That the Petitioners and other families will be rendered homeless if the actions of the Adjudication Committee appointed on 7th July 2020 and all its subsequent orders thereunder are not curtailed and/or halted. 6.It is further averred that the actions of the Respondents greatly violate the Petitioners’ rights under Articles 27, 28, 29(c) and (f) 40, 47 and 48, 159(2) (a) and (b). 7.The Petition is founded on Articles 22(1) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to every person to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied violated or infringed or is threatened. 8.The Petition pleads further that the following Articles of the Constitution were infringed by the Actions of the Respondents.a.Articles 27 - On the right to equal protection and equal benefit of lawb.Articles 28 – On the right of human dignity respected and protected.c.Article 29(c) – The right not to be subjected to any form of violence from either public or private sources.d.Article 29(f) – and the right not to be treated or punished, in a cruel, in human or degrading manner.e.Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) provides for the right to either individually or in association with others to acquire and own property.f.The right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient lawful reasonable and procedurally fair under Article 47 of the Constitution.g.The right to access justice under Article 48 of the Constitution. 9.The Petitioner pleaded the particulars violated under each Article of the Constitution aforesaid and sought for the reliefs set out at paragraph 2 of this judgment. 10.In support of the Petition the Petitioners filed a supporting affidavit deponed by the 1st Petitioner who deponed reiterated the facts in support of the Petition and annexed a list of 500 members of Kimintet Adjudication Section, a copy of the declaration of the Kimintet Adjudication Section made on 29th October 1986, a copy of Trust deed of the members of Kimintet Group Ranch, copy of declaration of Adjudication Section dated 6th February 2020, letter to National Land Commission. Respondents Case 11.A response to the Petition was filed vide the Replying affidavit of J. Lessan, the then Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Transmara South, West and East subcounties, in which he deposed as herefollows; -i.That the Adjudication process of Kimintet F had already been completed and a duplicate Adjudication Record was sent to the Director of Lands Adjudication on 20th of July 2022 and titles were prepared and sent to the respective owners.ii.That adjudication in Kimintet E was completed on 11.04.2023 and adjudication register was available for inspection at Ilookwaya Trading Centre, and after lapse of 60 days it was forwarded to the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement and any person with a grievance ought to have filed Objection within 60 days.iii.That the titles for Kimintet E were ready and were awaiting dispatch.iv.That Kimintet B is distinct from Kimintet E and F, and Kimintet E and F have never been part of Kimintet B.v.That there is no selfish motive in adjudication of Kimintet E and F as alleged by Petitioners as the process has been open and transparent, public barazas having been held at Pusanki Centre to sensitize the public.vi.All people with legitimate claim were allocated land, and those dissatisfied given opportunities to raise objections.vii.First Petitioner was allocated parcel No. 394 in Kimintet E adjudication section and Tikan Letitia raised an Objection in respect of that parcel by virtue of ownership by purchase which Objection was allowed.viii.That there is no existence of a Kimintet Ranch and the list purporting membership is not authentic. 12.The Respondents annexed the following documents in the Replying affidavit;a.Copy of letter dated 20.07.2022 on Kimintet F.b.Copy of letterdated 11.04.2023 on Kimintet E.c.Letter dated 18.07.2023 to Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement.d.An excerpt of map showing boundaries of Kimintet B, E and F.e.Letter for public baraza dated 13.01.2021.f.Demarcation book of Kimintet E. 13.The Petitioners vide an application dated 4th of June 2025 sought for joinder of the Chief Land Adjudication Officer which when pointed out was non-existent office, the Petitioner filed another application for joinder application of the Director of Land Adjudication and sought to be issued with the adjudication register of 13th March 1989. The application was disposed off vide the Ruling dated 08.12.2025, in which the court observed the process for seeking access to information under Section 14 of the Access to Information Act as stated in Supreme court decision Njonjo Mue case had not been exhausted. 14.Parties were directed to file canvassed the application by way of written submissions. Petitioners Submission 15.The Petition proceed by way of written submissions. For the Petitioners, the firm of Mugumya and Co. Advocates filed their submissions dated 3rd February 2026 and framed 3 issues for determination, to wit;i.Whether the petitioners rights were infringed?ii.Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought?iii.Who should bear the costs of the Petitioner? 16.On issue No. 1, the Petitioners submit that the actions of the Respondents breached the above Articles in that they declared Kimintet Adjudication Sections E and F which is in the same Area as Kimintet Adjudication B that had long been completed. They placed reliance on Annexture DKK 2(a-b) copies of the declaration dated 29.10.1986 which defined the boundaries of Kimintet Adjudication B, and the same borders Kimintet Adjudication A and spanned across three rivers. The Petitioner submit that JKL 4 annexed in the Replying affidavit of the Respondents shows that adjudication section is small; hence there was an irregularity that portions of Kimintet B was lived off to create section E. 17.The Petitioner submit further there was breach of Article 10 of the Constitution in terms of the appointment of the adjudication committee in accordance with section 6 of the land adjudication Act, thus there was no public participation in the appointment of the committee. The public baraza that was apparently held had no minutes attached, hence the Appointment of committee was unprocedural and felt short of the Constitutional requirements of public participation. 18.The Petitioner in support of this submissions placed reliance in the decision in Meru ELC Petition No. 5/2010, between Muthara Njuri Ncheke Council of Elders and Another versus Committee of Ngare Mara/Gambella Adjudication Section as well as Nanyuki ELC Case No. 1 OF 2023 Lorunyei and Another versus Attorney General and 3 Others.(Meru ELC Petition 5/2020 decision) 19.On issue No. 2, the Respondents submit placed on the Meru ELC Petition No. 5/2010 decision, that they are entitled to orders of cancellation of the entire section, and an award of 20,000,000/= while placing reliance on the decision in Peter Ndegwa Kiai versus Attorney General. 20.The Petitioners also sought for costs of the Petition. Respondents Submission 21.The Respondents in their submissions laid out the legal framework Governing Adjudication under Cap 284 Laws of Kenya and submit that the framework is exhaustive and contains specific provisions for redress of grievances, and that the Petitioners have not demonstrated compliance with the said procedures. 22.The Respondents submit further that Kimintet F Adjudication was completed and register forwarded to Director on 20th of July 2022. 23.Kimintet E Adjudication section was equally completed and adjudication register set out for inspection; on 11th of April 2023 Statutory period for lodging objection lapsed and the adjudication record was sent to director on 18th July 2023. 24.The above procedures were done in compliance with sections 25 and 26 of the Land Adjudication Act. The Respondent submit that Petitioners have not identified any lapse in the said procedural requirements, the place reliance on the decision in Republic Vs. Land Adjudication Officer Tigania, East, Exparte, Marete M’Mbijume. 25.The Respondents submit that there was public participation and Transparency and that public participation requires not unanimity or satisfaction of all stakeholders and reliance was placed in decision in British American Tobacco Vs. Cabinet Secretary for Ministry of Health. 26.The Respondent submit that the Petitioners were aware of the process and 1st Petitioner was allocated parcel 394 in Kimintet E Adjudication section, but an objection to the said allocation was lodged, heard and determined was successful. 27.The Respondent submit that a party who participates in a statutory process cannot later challenge its legitimacy in absent of proof of illegality. Reliance on this limb of submission was placed on the decision in the case of Republic Vs. Minister of Lands and Settlement and 3 Others exparte Kiptugen (2018) eKLR. 28.The Respondents submit that no proof of overlap between Kimintet E and F with Kimintet B was provided. 29.The Respondent submit that Kimintet Group Ranch does not legally exist no certificate of incorporation was annexed before court. 30.The Respondents submit that no violation of constitutional Rights have been proven and the mere invocation of constitutional principles does not demonstrate Violation of Rights, underArticle 40 (right to property)Article 47 (fair administrative action)Article 10 (public participation) 31.The Respondents submit that the orders sought would disrupt completed statutory processes and are untenable, the Respondents thus urge the court to dismiss the Petition. Issues for Determination 32.Arising from the Petition, the Replying affidavit, the written submissions, the court frames the following as issues for determinationi.Whether there is an overlap between Kimintet ‘B’ Adjudication section on the one hand and Kimintet ‘E’ and ‘F’ adjudication sections on the hand.ii.Whether or not the Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated?iii.What reliefs ought to issue.iv.Who bears the costs of the petition. Analysis and Determination 33.The gravamen of the Petition before court is that the petitioner’s right to own property has been infringed and/or is threatened with infringement in so far as Kimintet sections E and F overlap with Kimintet Adjudication Section B, which was declared earlier in 1986. 34.They have annexed a copy of the declaration of DKK 2’A-B’, and DKK5 a copy of the declaration that had been made on 29th October 1986. 35.The documents relied on by the petitioners in respect of the boundaries of Kimintet A and E and F stated to be annextures DKK (2’a-b’) and DKK 5 are illegible, which necessitated the court to call for legible copies from the 8th Respondent under section 173(1) of the Evidence Act. 36.From the legible copies of the Notices establishing Kimintet E and F, the court finds that the said Areas were declared adjudication Areas in the section of Kimintet ‘D’ adjudication section that had been left as a gap. 37.These two areas Kimintet E and F thus have separate and distinct boundaries from Kimintet B as captured at paragraph 9 of the Replying affidavit of Mr. J.K Lessan filed in Response to this petition, and hence there is no overlap as pleaded by the petitioners. 38.Having found that Kimintet E and F are distinct from Kimintet whose adjudication was already finalized but closer to Kimintet D in respect of where some gaps had been left, it follows that the adjudication committee formed in 1989 with respect to Kimintet B could not also be the same adjudication committee of Kimintet E and F which were declared in 2020 in a different area; and required their own adjudication committees. 39.In view of the distinct boundaries between Kimintet E and F on the one hand and Kimintet B on the other hand, the court does not share the petitioners view that there is an overlap between the three adjudication sections, which will infringe on the petitioner’s rights to own property. 40.The Respondents Replying Affidavit has given details of public participation through display of the register of Kimintet E for inspection at Ilookwaya trading center on 11th April 2023 and any person dissatisfied with the adjudication register was given t60 days to lodge an objection. The above is in tandem with provisions of the Land Adjudication Act section 5 and 25(b) thereof. 41.Consequently, the said action of allowing members to inspect the adjudication register ensured every member was treated in accordance with the law and the contention that the petitioner that the members not afforded equal protection of law or there was no public participation as claimed by the petitioner is far fetched. The 1st Petitioner is said to have been allocated parcel No. 394 in Kimintet E, which was subject of an objection raised by Tikan Letita, which objection was allowed. 42.Thus in answer to issue number 1, the court finds that there is no overlap between Kimintet B Adjudication sections, with Kimintet E and F adjudication sections, and that Kimintet E and F being separate Adjudication section, the 8th Respondent acted within the law to appoint adjudication committees in respect of these new adjudication section independent of the adjudication committee that had been appointment in respect of Kimintet B, in 1989. 43.The decision in Muthara Njuri Ncheke Council of Elders and Others Vs. the Committee of Ngaremara/Gambella Adjudication section cited by the petitioner is distinguished as in the decision dealt with a corrigendum to an adjudication section, which had expanded the original adjudication section, while in this matter, the court has found that the Kimintet E and F adjudication sections have separate boundaries which do not overlap with Kimintet B. 44.On issue No. 2, as whether the petitioner’s constitutional rights pleaded have been infringed? 45.The court has found that since the adjudication section for Kimintet E and F are distinct and separate, from Kimitent B, there is no possibility of an overlap in the three sections so as to deprive the petitioners and other members of their constitutional right to own property (under Article 40) 46.In that regard the petitioner’s right to own property cannot be said to have been threatened or infringed as pleaded in the petition. 47.Before commencement of the adjudication process, public barazas were conducted as evidenced in annexture JKL5, and after the closure of adjudication section, the adjudication register was displayed for inspection, to enable dissatisfied persons filed objections as evidenced in annexture JKL5, and in fact the 1st petitioner was allocated a parcel which was subjected to objection proceedings as per the demarcation book annexture JKL6. 48.In this regard there was substantial compliance with the Land Adjudication Act in terms of public participation as spelt under sections 5 and 25(b) of the Land Adjudication Act. The fact that the petitioners preferred the old Adjudication Committee set up in 1989, which committee related to Kimintet B, and since the preference was not taken into account does not mean that public participation was not held. 49.In British America Tobacco Kenya Ltd Vs. Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health and 2 Others, the Supreme court held interalia; -“(g)Public participation was not necessarily a process consisting of oral hearings, written submissions could also be made. The fact that someone was not heard was not enough to annul the process…” 50.The court having found that there was compliance with section 5 and 25(b) of the Land Adjudication Act which sections dictates the statutory parameters of public participation in the adjudication process the conclusion is that the petitioner’s right to public participation were not infringed. 51.On the infringement of the right to equal protection of the law. The court finds that the Land Adjudication Act provides for objection proceedings and Appeals to the Minister for a party dissatisfied with the decision of the objection proceedings. The 1st Petitioner did not challenge that he was allocated parcel No. 384 in Kimintet E and that the said parcel was subject to objection proceedings, by way of a supplementary affidavit so as to confirm whether or not he exercised the said right to Appeal to the Minister and it was denied. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was denied the right to equal protection of the law. 52.The petitioners pleaded infringement and/or violations of their right to be heard, fair administrative action, right to human dignity and right to access justice, but did not plead the particulars of the actions leading to the said infringements and/or violations with the degree of precision, as required in the principles in Annarita Karimi Njeri Vs. Republic, hence in respect of the infringements of this rights, the court is unable to make any finding of their violations. 53.In answer to issue No. 2, the petitioner did not proof violations and/or infringements of their rights under the constitution. 54.The inevitable conclusion the court reaches is that having failed to prove infringements and/or violation of their constitutional rights, the petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. DATED AT KILGORIS THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2026HON. M. N. MWANYALE.JUDGE.In the presence of:CA –SylviaMr. Ranah h/b for Ms. Osebe for 1st – 3rd to 6th, 8th and 9th RespondentsMr. Nandi h/b for Mr. Mugmya for the Petitioners