Kaniki v Njuki & 11 others (Environment and Land Case 12 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 4294 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT EMBU** **ELC CASE NO. 12 OF 2014** **NDATHI KANIKI……………………………………………………PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **JOHN NJIRU NJUKI.........................................................1ST DEFENDANT** **BARNABAS NJERU NJUKI………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT** **AGNES WATHURA NJUKI…………………………………3RD DEFENDANT** **GITHUMBU NJERU…………………………………………4TH DEFENDANT** **JOHN MAINA MWANGI…………………………………..5TH DEFENDANT** **MARIAM NJOKI MUTURI…………………………………6TH DEFENDANT** **BRIAN NJOKA MUTURI……………………………………7TH DEFENDANT** **NJAGI PETER NTHIGA……………………………………..8TH DEFENDANT** **PIUS IRERI NJAGI……………………………………………9TH DEFENDANT** **JOHNSON GICHUHI NJUGUNA………………………...10TH DEFENDANT** **REMIGIUS NGARI MWANIKI……………………………..11TH DEFENDANT** **NDUNG’U KARIUKI……………………………………….12TH DEFENDANT** **JUDGMENT** 1. Through the Further Amended Plaint dated 18/10/2019, the Plaintiff claimed that he was the proprietor of the land known as Nthawa/Siakago/1724 measuring approximately 30 acres (the suit land). That in 1990 his niece and her husband, sued as the 2nd Defendant, requested to live on a portion of the suit land and cultivate it and it was on that basis that they entered the suit land. In 1995 the late Njuki Mutandike who was the father of the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendant and husband of the 3rd Defendant requested the Plaintiff to allow them to live on and cultivate part of the Plaintiff’s land. Based on the permission granted by the Plaintiff, the 1st to 4th Defendants continued living on the land. 2. He averred that the 1st Defendant filed a case against the him in 2006 before the Mbeere District Land Tribunal claiming part of the suit land on behalf of the family of Njuki Mutandike, in which the tribunal found in favour of the family of Njuki Mutandike. The Plaintiff lodged an appeal before the Eastern Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee in 2008 but his papers were unfortunately misplaced and he was asked to file another appeal in 2010. 3. The Plaintiff’s claim was that the District Land Dispute Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a case involving ownership of land registered under the Registered Land Act or to cancel title and transfer the land to the 1st Defendant. That in execution of the award by the District Land Dispute Tribunal, the suit land was subdivided into Nthawa/Siakago/3694 to 3701. He stated that the 1st Defendant retained parcel numbers 3694 and 3697, while parcel number 3695 was registered in the 1st Defendant’s name jointly with the 5th Defendant. Parcel number 3696 was transferred to the 6th and 7th Defendants who later transferred it to the 5th Defendant. Parcel number 3698 was transferred to the 6th and 7th Defendants who later transferred it to the 8th Defendant. That parcel number 3699 was transferred to the 9th Defendant while parcel number 3700 was transferred to the 10th Defendant as well as parcel 3701. Parcel number 3695 was further subdivided into parcel numbers 4030 to 4036. Parcel number 4036 was transferred to the 5th Defendant as well as parcel number 4035. 4. The Plaintiff sought a declaration that the award of Mbeere Land Disputes Tribunal in tribunal case number 316 of 2006 which was entered as a judgment of the Siakago Principal Magistrates Court to the effect that the Plaintiff’s land parcel number 1724 was to be transferred to the 1st Defendant to hold in trust for the family of Njuki Mutandike and that the Plaintiff’s title would be cancelled was unlawful and void and should be set aside. He sought an order that the cancellation of his title over parcel number 1724 and the subsequent subdivision of the suit land by the 1st Defendant into parcels 3694 to 3701 and 4030 to 4036, and the transfer of those subdivided portions was illegal, void and did not confer any title to the Defendants. He sought to have the registration of the Defendants as proprietors of the land declared illegal and a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with his use and occupation of those parcels of land. 5. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claim. They averred that the Plaintiff held parcel number 1724 in trust for their father Njuki Mutandike. That the Plaintiff and Njuki Mutandike belonged to the Ikandi Clan and that large tracts of land were registered in the Plaintiff’s name to hold in trust for members of the Ikandi Clan since he was the Chairman of the Ikandi Clan. They averred that their father settled on the suit land in 1969 with his family including the Defendant were living on the land. 6. The 5th Defendant filed a defence in which he stated that he was the co-owner of parcel numbers 4033 and 4034, which he claimed that he purchased from the 1st Defendant. The 10th Defendant filed a defence denying the Plaintiff’s claim. The 11th Defendant averred in his defence that he was the owner of parcel number 3701 having purchased it from the 1st Defendant lawfully. 7. The hearing of the case proceeded on 21/7/2025. The Plaintiff gave evidence. He told the court that he was the owner of parcel number 1724. A title was issued to him on 4/9/1980 upon completion of the land adjudication process. That after he got the title, he started utilizing the land. Sometime in 1990, his sister’s daughter, Ngithi Njeru requested him to allow her and her husband, the 2nd Defendant to cultivate part of his land. Later the 2nd Defendant’s father, Njuki Mutandike and his younger brother requested him to allow them to stay with his niece’s husband. He allowed them to stay on the land in 1995. Njuki Mutandike died in 2000 without having any land but he was later given land by his family. 8. In 2006 the 2nd Defendant filed a case against him claiming that he should have given his late father part of the land. The Land Disputes Tribunal decided that he should give the land to the 1st Defendant to hold in trust for his family. Following that decision, judgment was entered by the Siakago Senior Residents Magistrates Court. When he lodged his appeal, the Provincial Commissioner’s Office misplaced his documents and he was asked to lodge another appeal. However, the Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee decided that it could not hear the appeal because it was filed late after the Siakago Senior Resident Magistrates Court had entered judgment. He urged that the tribunal did not have powers to order the transfer of his land which he had a title over to the 1st Defendant and his family as he had only allowed them to stay on the land. 9. The Plaintiff produced copies of the title deed over parcel number 1724, the land register and the proceedings before the Mbeere Land Disputes Tribunal, the Provincial Appeals Committee and the Siakago PMC Land Disputes Tribunal Case No. 5 of 2006. He also annexed a copy of the decree issued by the Siakago Law Courts. 10. On cross examination, he confirmed that he was not living on the suit land before it was subdivided. He contended that the Defendants did not live on the suit land and that it was only his daughter who lived on the land with her children. He did not know on which portion of the suit land his daughter lived after the subdivision of the land. He had his title deed in court and did not know that it had been gazetted as lost. He reiterated that he lodged an appeal against the decision of the tribunal. 11. The 1st Defendant gave evidence and told the court that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants were his relatives. He stated that parcel number 1724 was to have been registered in his father’s name, Njuki Mutandike but it was registered in the name of the chairman of Ikandi Clan to hold in trust for his father and his family. The Plaintiff refused to transfer the land to his father. That his father settled on the land in 1959 and developed it extensively. His father reported the dispute to the area chief who summoned the Plaintiff. He claimed that the Plaintiff admitted that the land belonged to the 1st Defendant’s late father and wrote a letter agreeing to transfer the land. When the Plaintiff refused to transfer the land to Njuki Mutandike, it led to the filing of the suit before the tribunal. The tribunal’s decision was adopted as the judgment of the court. 12. The 1st Defendant averred that James Njeru Nyaga sued the Plaintiff in 1990 in Embu SRMCC No. 56 of 1990 claiming parcels number 1770, 1724 and 1725 which the Plaintiff was to distribute to the rightful members of the Ikandi Clan. He claimed that the court found that the parcels were registered in the Plaintiff’s name by virtue of being the chairman of Ikandi Clan and was ordered to surrender the land to the clan members. He added that the Defendants had lived on the suit land since time immemorial and that they were born and brought up there. He contended that the Plaintiff was guilty of laches for he never challenged the outcome of Embu SRMCC No. 56 of 1990 or Tribunal Case No. 5 of 2008. He urged the court to dismiss the suit with costs for having been overtaken by events. 13. He produced a copy of the gazette notice dated 1/7/2011 on the registration of instrument, title deed for parcel numbers 4034, 3701, 3700, 3694 and 4034. He also produced a copy of transfer form for parcel number 3698, letter of consent for parcel number 3698 together with the official search. He also annexed a copy of the decree issued by the Siakago Law Court on 29/6/2010 and proceedings before the appeals committee dismissing the appeal and upholding the ruling of the District Land Disputes Tribunal. 14. The Plaintiff sought time for his advocate to attend court and cross-examine the defence witness. The matter was put off to 7/10/2012 for further hearing. The 1st Defendant gave evidence on 7/10/2025 and was cross examined. He told the court that when the land was transferred to him, it was registered in the Plaintiff’s name. He stated that the tribunal had powers to cancel the title. He maintained that his father, Njuki Mutandike was given the suit land by the Ikandi Clan. He conceded that the title did not indicate that the Plaintiff held the title as a trustee. He conceded that the land had been subdivided into the portions which the Plaintiff gave. 15. He denied that the Plaintiff allowed his father and his children to utilize the land. He maintained that the process went through court before he was given the land and that it was the court which decided that the land was his father’s. The Plaintiff did not file a judicial review application to challenge the decision of the tribunal. He told the court that he gave his siblings land and that he sold part of the land with the consent of his mother and siblings. He stated that he was born in 1968 on the suit land and that before his father died, he too lived on the land. 16. Parties filed and exchanged written submissions, which the court has submitted. The Plaintiff submitted in his submissions dated 15/10/2025 that he was the registered owner of the suit land and that it was fraudulently transferred by the 1st Defendant. He argued that the 1st Defendant did not plead or prove that the land was registered in his name as Chairman to hold in trust for the Ikandi Clan, and that the register did not reflect that. 17. He pointed out that the purchasers obtained titles after 2011 and denied that the 1st to 4th Defendants had lived on the land from time immemorial as they claimed in court. That were it so, then they would have filed a claim for adverse possession. 18. The Plaintiff reiterated that Section 3 (1) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act made it clear that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the question of ownership of land. He relied on **R v Chairman, Awendo Land Disputes Tribunal & 4 Others Kisii HC JR Case No. 4 of 2007** in which the court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to handle a claim regarding ownership of registered land. 19. On their part, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th to 13th Defendants vide the submissions dated 10/12/2025 contended that the Plaintiff’s claim arose from the Tribunal’s findings, which were adopted as a judgment by the court in Siakago SPM LDT No. 5 of 2002 on 24/8/2010. They urged that the judgment was protected by virtue of Section 23 (3) (e) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. They added that the judgment was executed and the land was subdivided as the evidence they tendered in court demonstrated. 20. They urged that the 5th, 9th to 12th Defendants were *bona fide* purchasers for value. They went on to argue that Sections 8 and 9 of the repealed Land Disputes Tribunal Act provided a remedy for a party that was aggrieved by its decision which would have resulted in a judicial review to quash the proceedings under the Law Reform Act. 21. The Defendants cited **Mathenge v Gatua & Another [2024] KECA 3411 KLR** in support of the argument that it was not in order for a Plaintiff to file a fresh suit where he was dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s findings. They were emphatic that the Plaintiff should have pursued the proper legal channels to overturn the findings of the Tribunal which resulted in the Siakago Court’s judgment. 22. The issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff has proved his claim on a balance of probabilities and whether this court should grant the reliefs he seeks. The Plaintiff’s claim is that he holds title over the suit land which was fraudulently transferred by the 1st Defendant to the other Defendants. The titles held by the Defendants emanated from the judgment vide which the Siakago court adopted the Mbeere Tribunal’s findings. The Plaintiff stated in court that his attempts to dislodge the decision of Mbeere Land Disputes Tribunal before the Eastern Provincial Land Disputes Appeal Committee in 2008, his papers got lost and he was directed to file another appeal in 2010 only 23. It is evident that **R v Chairman, Awendo Land Disputes Tribunal & 4 Others Kisii HC JR Case No. 4 of 2007** which the Plaintiff cited was a judicial review matter in which the jurisdiction of the Land Disputes Tribunal was challenged. The Plaintiff ought to have challenged the Tribunal’s findings in judicial review proceedings and not through a plaint as he did in this suit. 24. In **Mathenge v Gatua & Another [2024] KECA 3411 KLR**, the Court of Appeal reiterated that a valid judgment of a court remained valid until it was overturned. Further, that it was enforceable, the issue of jurisdiction notwithstanding. Based on this finding, this court is inclined to find that the judgment from the Siakago court which was enforced and resulted in the titles held by the Defendants remained valid and enforceable since it was not overturned through the prescribed legal channels. 25. The court declines to grant the orders sought in the Further Amended Plaint dated 18/10/2019. Each party will bear its costs. Delivered virtually at Bungoma this 30th day of June 2026. **K. BOR** **JUDGE** **In the presence of: -** Mr. Ndathi Kaniki- the Plaintiff in person Court Assistant- Diana Kemboi No appearance for the Defendants