https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3227
The application failed because it misrepresented the decree in ELC Case No. 314 of 2014 and because the court lacked jurisdiction to execute that decree through a separate miscellaneous application; execution issues had to be pursued in the original suit under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3227 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Mubatsi Nambiro; Respondent: Land Registrar Kakamega County
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 13 January 2026
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- ["A Nyukuri"]
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Decrees, Cancellation of Title Deed, Miscellaneous Application Jurisdiction, Res Judicata, Public Land, Section 31 Land Registration Act, Section 34 Civil Procedure Act
- 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
Patrick Mubatsi Nambiro
Applicant
Land Registrar Kakamega County
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 13 January 2026
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to orders dispensing with production of the original certificate of lease and cancelling the title.
- 2 Whether a miscellaneous application could be used to execute a decree issued in a separate suit.
- 3 Whether the application was founded on falsehoods and therefore lacked merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because it misrepresented the decree in ELC Case No. 314 of 2014 and because the court lacked jurisdiction to execute that decree through a separate miscellaneous application; execution issues had to be pursued in the original suit under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 13 January 2026 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Nambiro v Land Registrar Kakamega County (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3227 (KLR) (25 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3227 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2026 A Nyukuri, J May 25, 2026 Between Patrick Mubatsi Nambiro Applicant and Land Registrar Kakamega County Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.Before court is a Notice of motion dated 13th January 2026 filed by the applicant seeking the following orders;a.Spentb.That the Land Registrar Kakamega county land registry do dispense with the production of the original certificate of lease for land parcel number Mumias Municipality Block 1/96 in the name of Solomon Watitwa Mungóni.c.That the Land Registrar Kakamega county land registry do cancel the certificate of lease for land parcel number Mumias Municipality Block 1/96 in the name of Solomon Watitwa Mungóni pursuant to the court decree issued in Kakamega Environment and Land Court Case No. 314 of 2014 without production of the Original certificate of lease.d.That the Honourable court be pleased to make such further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of this case.e.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the applicant dated 13th January 2026. The applicant’s case is that there is a decree issued in Kakamega ELC CASE NO. 314 OF 2014 that directed cancellation of the lease certificate for parcel No. Mumias Municipality Block 1/96 in the name of Solomon Watitwa Mungoni. That the said Solomon Watitwa Mungoni has declined to surrender the original certificate of lease of the suit property and that the orders sought should issue in the interests of justice. He attached the decree. 3.The application was opposed. The respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 27th January 2026. He stated that the application was an abuse of the court process and that the applicant had failed to comply with section 31 of the Land Registration Act. That the application was an affront to the doctrine of non interference and that it was also res judicata and an attempt to review the judgment. That the decree stated inter alia that the suit property remains public land until a valid procedure for alienation is followed and anyone interested in acquiring it must follow the lawful procedure when the government lawfully disposes it. That the applicant seeks substantive orders in a miscellaneous application. Analysis and determination 4.The court has carefully considered the application and grounds of opposition. The only issue that arise for the court’s determination is whether the applicant deserves the orders sought. 5.In this matter, the applicant seeks to have title in respect of land parcel number Mumias Municipality Block 1/96 transferred to him. He argued that granting the order sought will be an enforcement of the decree of the court issued in Kakamega ELC CASE NO. 314 OF 2014. 6.The court takes the position that the application herein fails on two grounds. First, the application is based on falsehoods. The decree in Kakamega ELC CASE NO. 314 OF 2014 never stated that land parcel number Mumias Municipality Block 1/96 be transferred to the applicant. In that matter, this court stated that the said property remains public land. Secondly, section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that questions on execution of decrees ought to be determined within the same suit where the decree was made and not by a separate suit. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree issued in Kakamega ELC CASE NO.314 OF 2014 through this Miscellaneous application. 7.In the premises, the application dated 13th January 2026 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. 8.It is so ordered DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT/VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2026A. NYUKURIJUDGEIn the presence of;No appearance for the applicantMr. Juma for the respondentCourt Assistant: Delphine