https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8995

Macharia v Chairman, Land Control Board, Nyandarua County & 3 others (Miscellaneous Constitutional Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8995 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8995 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Constitutional and Human Rights Miscellaneous Constitutional Petition E001 of 2025 KW Kiarie, J June 25, 2026 Between Juma Njunge Macharia Petitioner and The Chairman, Land Control Board, Nyandarua County 1st Respondent Registrar Of Lands, Nyandarua County 2nd Respondent John Mwangi 3rd Respondent Juma Macharia 4th Respondent Ruling 1.Juma Njunge Macharia, the petitioner/applicant herein, moved the court by a notice of motion and a petition dated 10th day of December 2025. He is seeking the following orders:a.That this application be certified as urgent in the first instance. [Spent]b.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, the 3rd and 4th respondents be restrained by way of restraining orders of injunction from entering, trespassing, intimidating, threatening, interfering with, occupying, alienating, or in any way dealing with the applicant's land parcel Nyandarua/Ol Aragwai/358.c.That a temporary injunction do issue restraining the respondents (jointly and severally) from interfering with the applicant's peaceful occupation, use, enjoyment or disposal of his land pending inter partes hearing of this application.d.That an order directing that the Nyandarua Land Control Board 1st respondent, be prohibited from barring, frustrating or refusing to process the applicant's applications for Land Control Board consents, including consent to sell, transfer, charge or otherwise deal with his land.e.That in alternative and in the interest of justice, this Honourable Court be pleased to bypass or sanction the Land Control Board and execute the requisite Land Control Board consents to enable the applicant dispose, transfer, sell or otherwise deal with his land for purposes That a permanent injunction orders restraining the 3rd and 4th respondents from harassing, threatening, intimidating, attacking or attempting to occupy or evict the applicant from his land and interfering with the applicant's right to sell, transfer, use or deal with the property.f.That a declaration be issued that the conduct of the respondents individually or jointly violates the applicant's constitutional rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 40 & 43 of the Constitution of Kenya, right to property, right to dignity, right to life, freedom from violence and right to health.g.That a declaration to issue that there is no legal or constitutional obligation in Kenya for any parents, least of all the applicant herein, to leave inheritance to his children, and that his children herein have no legal right to object to the sale or disposal of parental property in light of the existing basic needs of parents.h.That the OCS Murungaru Police Station or such other officer as may be duly authorized do assist in the enforcement and implementation of the orders issued herein.i.Any other order the Honourable court shall deem just and equitable in the circumstances.j.The costs of this application be in Cause. 2.The application was premised on the following grounds:a.That the petitioner is an old man aged 86 years, a widower and an ex-freedom fighter.b.The petitioner is the registered owner of all that property known as Nyandarua/Ol Aragwai/358 and holds a valid title deed to the exclusion of any other person.c.The petitioner has no means of livelihood, and he relies solely on his land as my only asset for survival, sustenance and medical needs.d.The petitioner is suffering from destituteness and severe medical conditions and requires urgent access to funds to pay for medical bills, hospital visits and daily subsistence.e.That the petitioner's children, including the 3rd and 4th respondents herein, have no legal right to object to the sale or disposal of their father’s land where it is clear the proceeds are required for survival and medical care.f.That on 24/04/2025, the petitioner applied for Land Control Board consent, but the 3rd and 4th respondents opposed and maligned the process, hence the denial of consent.g.That it is in the interest of justice and the petitioner be allowed to sell, transfer or dispose of his land unconditionally to meet his urgent needs, including medical care. 3.The 1st and the 2nd respondents did not file any response, but the 3rd and the 4th respondents opposed the petition and the application on the following grounds:a.That the 3rd respondent resides on the suit property together with his family and has been living thereon for a considerable period.b.That the 4th respondent also resides on the said property.c.That the 3rd respondent and his wife are the primary caregivers of the petitioner and attend to his daily needs, including:i.Preparing his mealsii.Assisting with personal hygiene.iii.Ensuring his general well-being and comfort.d.That contrary to any insinuation otherwise, the petitioner is well taken care of and is not neglected.e.that following the demise of his wife about 14 years ago, the petitioner has been under the continuous care and support of his children, particularly the 3rd respondent, together with his spouse.f.That during periods of illness, the petitioner has been fully supported by the family, who have met his medical, domestic, and daily needs, and at no time has he been neglected.g.That presently, the petitioner has no known medical condition, serious or otherwise.h.That no urgent or exceptional medical or financial need necessitates the sale, transfer, or disposal of the suit property.i.That on a previous occasion, the petitioner attempted to transfer the entire suit property to one of his grandsons as a gift without the knowledge or involvement of his children.j.That the proposed transaction was presented before the Land Control Board, but consent was declined.k.That the Board raised concerns and required that all the petitioner’s children be involved and consulted before any such transfer could be considered.l.That the petitioner was not forthcoming in involving his children as directed by the Board.m.That the circumstances surrounding the attempted transfer raised legitimate concerns as to possible undue influence.n.That the objection lodged before the Land Control Board was made in good faith and solely to safeguard the petitioner's interests and prevent imprudent dealings.o.That the respondents remain ready and willing to continue providing for the petitioner without requiring the disposal of his land.p.That T we reiterate that our opposition is not driven by inheritance or personal gain, but by the need to ensure fairness, proper decision-making, and protection of the petitioner.q.That, given the petitioners' advanced age, there is reasonable concern that he may be susceptible to influence, and that the current decisions may not fully reflect independent and informed judgment.r.That we are apprehensive that the petitioner may be misadvised or unduly influenced, leading to actions that could prejudice both himself and the family.s.That the proposed disposal of the suit property is unnecessary, premature, and not in the best interest of the petitioner.t.That the orders sought against the respondents are unwarranted, as our actions have been guided purely by concern for the petitioner's welfare and protection.u.That it is in the interest of justice that this honourable court considers the petitioner's vulnerability and the need to safeguard him.v.That the application is misconceived, lacks merit, and is an abuse of the court process, and we pray that the same be dismissed with costs. 4.All transactions in agricultural land in Kenya are governed by the provisions in the Land Control Act, Chapter 302, Laws of Kenya. Section 5 of the Act creates land control Boards. It provides as follows:1.The Cabinet Secretary shall, by notice in the Gazette, establish a land control board for every land control area or, where it is divided into divisions, for each division.2.The membership of a land control board shall be as provided in the First Schedule of this Act. 5.The Act establishes a detailed appeal process when the area land control authority refuses to grant consent. The dissatisfied party may first appeal to the provincial land control appeals board. If they remain unsatisfied, they can then escalate the appeal to the central land control appeals board. The petitioner in this case did not exhaust the mechanisms provided for redress. Section 9 (2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act states as follows:The High Court or a subordinate court under sub-section (1) shall not review an administrative action or decision under this Act unless the mechanisms, including internal mechanisms for appeal or review, and all remedies available under any other written law are first exhausted. 6.It is important to note that the petitioner did not seek the court’s leave before submitting his petition, thereby exacerbating the flaws in his petition and application. 7.Both the petition and the application are dismissed with costs. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE