https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3013

**** **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC PETITION E093 OF 2025** **MOOGON ENTERPRISES LIMITED………………………..…………. PETITIONER** **-VERSUS-** **NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION……………………………..……RESPONDENT** **JUDGEMENT** **Background** 1. This matter is coming up for judgement on the petition dated 23rd October 2025 which seeks the following orders 2. A Declaration that the Respondent’s continued revocation of the Petitioner’s title for LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) for being part of city park vide Special issue gazette notice number 5022 dated 18th July 2014 is unconstitutional, unlawful and violates the Petitioner’s right to property and Fair Administrative Action under Article 40 and 47 of the Constitution. 3. A Declaration that the Respondent’s purported revocation of the Petitioner’s title for LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) vide Special issue gazette notice number 5022 dated 18th July 2014 is illegal, ultra vires, null and void and is hereby quashed. 4. A judicial review order of Certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the Respondent’s decision to revoke the Applicant’s title for LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) contained in Special issue gazette notice number 5022 dated 18th July 2014 for being part of city park and any consequent action and/or decision made pursuant to the said revocation. 5. A judicial review order of Mandamus do issue compelling the Respondent, the or any other person acting under them to forthwith to restore the Petitioner’s title for LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) to the Registry Index Map 6. That petition was supported by the affidavit sworn by the petitioner on the following grounds interalia 7. That the petitioner is the lawful and registered proprietor of all that piece of land being Title No. Nairobi Block 37/151(formerly LR.NO. 209/13382 and hereinafter referred to as the property) having been allotted the same in 1997. 8. That the petitioner was made aware through the dailies that its property was listed, among others, for revocation by the Respondent. That the petitioner approached the respondent on the same and presented its ownership documents where the respondent upon examining and visiting confirmed that the property was erroneously listed as part of the properties to be revoked. 9. That despite this representation, the respondent went ahead to revoke the petitioner’s title on the 18th July 2014 vide Special issue gazette notice number 5022 which prompted the petitioner to write various correspondence to the respondent who in turn made it known to the petitioner that according to its records, the property belonged to the Petitioner. 10. That the petitioner was shocked when he carried out a search online to confirm ownership to enable it transact and found that its title had been revoked via the gazette notice aforementioned and wrote another letter dated 23rd April 2024 to the respondent who in turn through the director of survey indicated that for the property to be listed back in the registry index map required a court order hence this petition **Respondent’s reply** 1. The petition was responded to by the respondent in a replying affidavit sworn by Brian Ikol the respondent’s director of legal affairs on the 11th October 2025. The said affidavit admitted the contents of the petition in its entirety pointing and attributing ownership of the suit property to the petitioner 2. He deponed that indeed the revocation of the petitioner’s title had been an erroneous listing and as per the respondent’s record’s the Petitioner was the rightful registered owner of the suit property and that the gazette notice dated 18th July 2024 had been reviewed upon the consideration of the petitioner’s case. Petitioners ‘submissions 1. The petitioner filed submissions dated 16th December 2026 and submitted on the following 2. Whether the petition is merited Counsel submitted that the respondent had no authority to revoke the petitioner’s title relying on the case of **Robert Mutiso Lelli Vs the National Land Commission & 3 Others NBI JR Nos. 298 and 363 of 2014.** That further the petition was not opposed nor challenged by the respondent rather that the respondent had made an admission in its replying affidavit. That under Order 13 rule 2 of the civil procedure rules 2010 it is provided that where an admission of facts has been made on pleadings a party may apply for judgment and the court may make such an order for judgement. Counsel submitted that in the interest of justice it would be prudent to allow the petition and allow the prayers as requested **Analysis and Determination** 1. The court has considered the Petition, the replying affidavit thereto and submissions on record and the main issue is whether the court petition is merited 2. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the suit property and that its title in respect to the suit property was revoked by the Respondent vide Gazette Notice No. 5022 dated 18th July 2014 facts that have admitted by the Respondent. The respondent has further admitted that the revocation was erroneously done and that it made a decision to review the same having established the petitioner’s proprietary rights. Paragraph 21 of the replying affidavit reads *21.”Conclusively, the Respondent made a determination on review of its early determination on L.R No. 209/I 3382 as follows: That parcel L.R No. 209/I 3382 measures 1.91 hectares approximately and is situated within Parklands, Nairobi, do not form part of City Park and therefore the Chief Land Registrar is hereby ordered to regularize the same in favour of Moogon Enterprises Limited: That the claim of Nairobi County that the property is part of City Park could not be substantiated by the Hearing Panel of the Respondent and therefore the same is hereby dismissed: and That the Respondent reverses its early Kenya Gazette Notice No. 5022 dated 18th july, 2014 and corrigenda of the same is to be prepared with immediate effect.’’* 1. The Petitioner is seeking for Judgment on admission to be entered. The law relating to the circumstances under which Judgment on admission may be entered has been settled. In **Choitram vs. Nazari (1984) KLR, 327**, Madan JA held as follows:*“For the purpose of Order XII Rule 6, admission can be expressed or implied either on the pleadings or otherwise, e.g. in correspondence. Admissions have to be plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable because they may result in Judgment being entered. They must be obvious on the face of them without requiring a magnifying glass to ascertain their meaning.”* 2. Indeed, admissions of fact under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules need not be in the pleadings alone. An admission can be it the form of correspondences or duly drawn cheques. In the case of **Peeraj General Trading and Contracting Company Limited, Kenya & Another vs. Mumias Sugar *Company Limited (2016) eKLR***, the court quoted with approval the case of ***Choitram*** *(supra)* as follows: *“Admissions of fact under Order XII Rule 6 need not be on the pleadings. They may be in correspondence or documents which are admitted or they may even be oral. The rules used words “otherwise” which are words of general application and are wide enough to include admission mode through letters, affidavits and other admitted documents and proval oral admissions… It is settled that a Judgment on admission is in the discretion of the court and not a matter of right. That discretion must be exercised judicially****.”*** 3. The Respondent’s Director of Legal affairs has deponed in his replying affidavit dated 11th December 2025 that the Petitionersr’s averments are true and having submitted as above and guided by the decided case laws above,an admission can result into a judgement. The petitioner has provided enough evidence to prove to be the legally registered owner of the suit property and there is no reason why he should be denied its right to property including and not limited to have the correct entries listed in the registry index to allow it transact in any way with its suit property. 4. In the circumstances, I allow the Petitioner’s Petition dated 23rd October 2025 in the following terms: 5. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent’s continued revocation of the Petitioner’s title for LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) for being part of city park vide Special issue gazette notice number 5022 dated 18th July 2014 is unconstitutional, unlawful and violates the Petitioner’s right to property and Fair Administrative Action under Article 40 and 47 of the Constitution. 6. A declaration that the respondent’s purported revocation of the petitioner’s title for LR No 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) vide Special issue gazette notice number 5022 dated 18th July 2014 is illegal, ultra vires, null and void and is hereby quashed. 7. An order of certiorari do issue to bring to this court and quash Gazette Notice No. 5022 dated 18th July 2014 to the extent that it relates to LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) 8. An order of mandamus be and is hereby issued directed to the Registrar of Titles, Nairobi and the Chief Land Registrar to immediately reinstate the records of the cancelled and revoked title of LR No. 209/13382 (currently, Nairobi/Block 37/151) to the registry index map. 9. Costs be awarded to the petitioner. **It is so ordered.** **DATED**, **SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** virtually at **NAIROBI** on this **14th** dayof **May,2026.** **MOHAMMED N. KULLOW** **JUDGE** **Judgement delivered in the presence of: -** **Mr. Kusow for Ogoma** for the Petitioner **Ms. Wanjiku for Koceye for** for the Respondent **Philomena W .** Court Assistant