Mumo (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Alex Nzaka Munga - Deceased) v Ndenge & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 188 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4179 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Judgment)

Mumo (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the Late Alex Nzaka Munga - Deceased) v Ndenge & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 188 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4179 (KLR) (1 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4179 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi Environment and Land Case 188 of 2017 EK Makori, J July 1, 2026 Between Mariam Mohamed Mumo (Suing As The Legal Representative Of The Estate Of The Late Alex Nzaka Munga - Deceased) Plaintiff and Andrew Ndenge 1st Defendant Wilson Dzoga 2nd Defendant Margret Mwadziwe 3rd Defendant Antony Ndana 4th Defendant Lawrence Saha 5th Defendant Judgment 1.The plaintiff, through his amended plaint of the 28th day of August, 2021, seeks the following prayers:a.A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and/or servants, or anyone working under them, from occupying, fencing off, building, cultivating, or in any way dealing with plot number Mugumopasta/Mazeras/1176.b.An order of eviction against the defendants from all that parcel of land known as Plot Number Mugumopasta/Mazeras/1176.c.Costs of this suit. 2.The background of the suit, as set out in the parties’ pleadings, is that the cause of action arises from the defendants’ unlawful trespass onto the plaintiff’s property under the pretext that they are relatives of one Ngala Kadilo, whose claim to the land was conclusively dismissed by both the Land Adjudication Committee and the Minister for Lands under section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 Laws of Kenya. 3.At the hearing, the plaintiff Mariam Mohammed – PW1 testified that she is the legal administrator of the estate of the late Alex Nzaka Munga (by virtue of the Limited Grant of Letter of Administration Ad Litem issued on 4th July 2019), who was the registered owner of land originally known as Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/535, inherited from his grandfather, Foster Munga Gege. 4.In 1984, one Ngala Kadilo lodged a claim before the Mazeras Rabai Land Adjudication Committee, alleging ownership of the said parcel. After a full hearing, the committee found that the land belonged to the Deceased, Alex Nzaka Munga. Dissatisfied, Ngala Kadilo appealed to the District Adjudication Committee, which reaffirmed the plaintiff’s title and declared that Kadilo was an imposter and ought to vacate the land. 5.Subsequently, the family of Ngala Kadilo lodged a further appeal to the Minister for Lands and Settlement under section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act. 6.On 19th June 2002, the Minister upheld the earlier decisions, confirming that the land belonged to Alex Nzaka Munga, deceased, except for a small portion covering the homestead (50x100 ft) allocated to Morris Angus Kadilo, who was a witness during adjudication. 7.The land was accordingly subdivided into:a.Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1177, measuring approximately 50x100 feet, allocated to Morris Angus Kadilo, andb.Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176, measuring 3.20 hectares, registered in the name of Alex Nzaka Munga. 8.The plaintiff testified that the defendants have since encroached onto Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176 without any color of right, asserting that they are relatives of the said Ngala Kadilo. Their continued occupation amounts to unlawful trespass, defiance of the Minister’s final decision, which remains conclusive and binding under section 29(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, and an infringement of the plaintiff’s property rights. 9.On the other hand, the defendants, through Elias Madzungo – DWI, testified that Morris Kadilo was his uncle. They have a home on the suit property. A dispute arose and ended with the Minister issuing an award outlining how the land was to be distributed. According to him, the portion comprising the homestead is 4 acres, with 5 houses standing thereon. A later survey was conducted, which shows where their homesteads are located. They live on the portion declared the homestead; hence, the current suit is misconceived and should be dismissed. 10.The issues for this court’s decision are whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land parcel Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176; whether the defendants have unlawfully trespassed upon the plaintiff’s property; and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the orders of eviction and permanent injunction sought. Costs. 11.Plaintiff submits that Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176 flows directly from the adjudication and subdivision process concluded under the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284). The Minister’s decision of June 19, 2002, under section 29 is final and can be challenged only by judicial review, which was not pursued. 12.Defendants aver that during the land and adjudication disputes, the tribunal heard the matter and issued an award, which was subsequently challenged through an appeal to the Minister under Case Number 192 of 2001. This was the finding of the appeal to the minister:a.I dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the objection.b.The interest of Morris Angus Kadilo, who resides within the adjudicated plot No. 535, should be considered. A small section of the land covering his homestead should be set aside for him, while the rest of the parcel of land should be registered in the name of Alex Nzaka Munga. 13.Section 29(1) of the Land Adjudication Act provides that:“The decision of the Minister shall be final upon all questions of law and of fact and shall not be questioned in any court.” 14.It is clear from the proceedings that this matter was subject to the adjudication process, and I can see the Minister provided the final decision on how the original land was to be distributed in the manner I have provided above. 15.It will seem from that decision that the Minister's award was implemented, and the original parcel No. Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/535 was subdivided as follows: Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1177, measuring approximately 50x100 feet, allocated to Morris Angus Kadilo, and Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176, measuring 3.20 hectares, registered in the name of Alex Nzaka Munga. 16.To seek judicial review of a completed land adjudication in a Kenyan court, you must file either a Judicial Review application or a Constitutional Petition in the Environment and Land Court (ELC). Because the Land Adjudication Act establishes a distinct, mandatory administrative system, you cannot file a standard civil suit to reopen the merits of boundary or ownership decisions already decided in the adjudication process. 17.In this matter, the plaintiff is not questioning the adjudication process. The plaintiff is seeking that, after the process was completed. The parties were issued titles; the defendants have encroached upon the portion that the adjudication process found in favor of the plaintiff's deceased husband; and the defendants should, as such, be evicted from what lawfully belongs to the plaintiff's deceased husband's estate. 18.To that extent, the court has jurisdiction. 19.A party that proves ownership through adjudication and registration acquires absolute rights in the property, protected by law. In Kyalo v Nduuti (Environment & Land Case 226 of 2017) [2025] KECA 1454. The ELC reaffirmed that a plaintiff who acquires suit property through a lawful and untainted land adjudication process is the absolute proprietor. A party relying on regular first registration overrides unverified counterclaims. 20.In Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Distributors Limited [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that an original, procedurally sound title confers absolute rights on the holder, shielding the holder from conflicting claims that do not meet the strict thresholds for fraud. Thus:“The law is typically stated in the case of Dr. Joseph Arap Ngok v.Justice Moijo ole Keiwua & 5 others, Civil Appeal No. Nai. 60 of 1997, where this Court categorically declared that: -“Section 23(1) of the Act gives an absolute and indefeasible title to the owner of the property. The title of such an owner can only be subject to challenge on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation to which the owner is proved to be a party. Such is the sanctity of title bestowed upon the title holder under the Act. It is our law and law takes precedence over all other alleged equitable rights of title. In fact the Act is meant to give such sanctity of title, otherwise the whole process of registration of Titles and the entire system in relation to ownership of property in Kenya would be placed in jeopardy.” 21.The property in question is registered under the legal regime of the Registered Land Act, Chapter 300 of the laws of Kenya (now repealed). Section 27 of the Registered Land Act provides that, subject to the Act, registration of a person as the proprietor of land vests in that person absolute ownership of that land, together with all rights and privileges belonging to or appurtenant thereto. 22.The above provisions are reproduced in Section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act, which applies by dint of section 107 of the Land Registration Act 2012, which reads:“Subject to this Act, the registration of a person as the proprietor of land shall vest in that person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto.” 23.Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act provides that:“The certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration or to a purchaser of land upon a transfer or transmission by the proprietor shall be taken by all Courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner, subject to the encumbrances, easements, restrictions and conditions contained or endorsed in the certificate, and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge, except-On the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; orWhere the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.” 24.Because the title held by the plaintiff was acquired through the adjudication process, I find that it is indefeasible and therefore the plaintiff is the lawful registered owner of the subject property. 25.The plaintiff submits that the defendants are trespassers on the suit property. On the other hand, the defendants' claim directly stems from the litigation before the adjudication committees, under the name of Morris Angus Kadilo. 26.The Minister conclusively determined the ownership of Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176 on June 19, 2002, and the suit property was subsequently registered in the name of the deceased, Alex Nzaka Munga. The defendants’ claim of relationship to Ngala Kadilo was dismissed. It follows that they have no registrable, beneficial, or equitable interest in Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1176; their registration is limited to Mugumo Pasta/Mazera/1177, which was awarded to Ngala Kadilo pursuant to the Minister’s decision that produced the two titles. 27.Regarding the orders sought against the defendants, including eviction, I will find that the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought and that they are tenable now that a finding has been made that the defendants have no ownership rights over the plaintiff’s suit property. I will proceed to make the following final orders:a.A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendants, their agents and/or servants, or anyone working under them, from occupying, fencing off, building, cultivating, or in any way dealing with plot number Mugumopasta/Mazeras/1176 measuring approximately 3.20 hectares.b.An order of eviction against the defendants from all that parcel of land known as Plot Number Mugumopasta/Mazeras/1176, measuring approximately 3.20 hectares. Initially, the defendants are to vacate voluntarily within 90 days of this judgment, or forcible eviction will be undertaken.c.The plaintiff is awarded the costs of this suit. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY IN NYERI ON THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.E. K. MAKORIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr.Ngumbau H/B for Mr. Kaburu for the PlaintiffDenis: Court AssistantIn the absence of:Mr. Otara for the Defendant