https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4977
The Court held that the petition would proceed primarily on the filed and exchanged affidavits, but the petitioners would be allowed to cross-examine the Land Adjudication Officer specifically on the question of when the adjudication register was closed; viva voce evidence was limited to that witness and that issue...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4977 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Petitioner: George Kalera Munyi; 2nd Petitioner: Peninah Karwitha Mutua; 1st Respondent: The Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East Sub-County; 2nd Respondent: the Land Registrar, County Lands Registry, Urru; 3rd Respondent: Attorney General; 1st Interested Party: Lucy Munjuri Kathao; 2nd Interested Party: Benson Thurania Zaberio
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Petition E010 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Mode of Taking Evidence in a Petition Challenging a Land Adjudication Decision
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; hybrid mode of evidence adopted.
- Judges
- ["BM Eboso"]
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Closure of Adjudication Register, Cross Examination on Affidavit Evidence, Hybrid Hearing Mode, Jurisdiction of Land Adjudication Officer
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Kalera Munyi
1st Petitioner
Peninah Karwitha Mutua
2nd Petitioner
The Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East Sub-County
1st Respondent
the Land Registrar, County Lands Registry, Urru
2nd Respondent
Attorney General
3rd Respondent
Lucy Munjuri Kathao
1st Interested Party
Benson Thurania Zaberio
2nd Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Petition / Ruling on Mode of Taking Evidence in a Petition Challenging a Land Adjudication Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Land Adjudication Officer illegally exercised jurisdiction after closure of the adjudication register
- 2 Whether the petition should proceed on affidavit evidence alone or allow limited viva voce evidence through cross-examination
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the petition would proceed primarily on the filed and exchanged affidavits, but the petitioners would be allowed to cross-examine the Land Adjudication Officer specifically on the question of when the adjudication register was closed; viva voce evidence was limited to that witness and that issue only.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; hybrid mode of evidence adopted.
Orders
- Reliance to be placed first on the filed and exchanged affidavits.
- The petitioners are granted leave to cross-examine the Land Adjudication Officer on the question of closure of the adjudication register only.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Munyi & another v Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East Sub-County & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4977 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4977 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Environment and Land Petition E010 of 2025 BM Eboso, J July 21, 2026 Between George Kalera Munyi 1st Petitioner Peninah Karwitha Mutua 2nd Petitioner and The Land Adjudication Officer Tigania East Sub-County 1st Respondent the Land Registrar, County Lands Registry, Urru 2nd Respondent Attorney General 3rd Respondent and Lucy Munjuri Kathao 1st Interested Party Benson Thurania Zaberio 2nd Interested Party Ruling [EX-TEMPORE] 1.This is a petition challenging the decision of the Land Adjudication Officer under the Land Adjudication Act. The key issue is whether the Land Adjudication Officer illegally exercised jurisdiction after closure of the adjudication register. It is an issue that would ideally be ventilated through affidavit evidence. 2.The petitioners have, however, insisted on being granted the opportunity to cross-examine the Land Adjudication Officer with a view to demonstrating when the Adjudication Register was closed. 3.Consequently, the Court will adopt a hybrid mode of taking evidence. First, reliance will be on the filed and exchanged affidavits. Secondly, the petitioners will have the opportunity to cross-examine the Land Adjudication Officer on the question of closure of the adjudication register. Viva voce evidence will be limited to the above witness and issue. 4.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026.B M EBOSO [MR]ELC JUDGEIn the Presence of:Mr Mwanzia for the PetitionerMs Wairimu for the RespondentMs Bett for the Interested PartyMr. E. Tupet – Court Assistant