Karamoh Impex and Transport Limited v County Government of Isiolo & 2 others (Petition E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4481 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed an Isiolo landowner's petition because a title certificate alone cannot prove ownership when land was irregularly allocated.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the Petitioner has proven that same is the lawful and registered proprietor of the suit property and thus entitled to the requisite protection or otherwise
- 2.whether the subject Petition constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court or otherwise
Key legal issues
#Proof of root of title
The Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving lawful acquisition of the certificate of title; the title was procured in vacuum and cannot attract constitutional protection.
The court held a certificate of title is an end product and cannot prove its own authenticity. Trust land alienation required an application to, and approval and recommendation by, the County Council of Isiolo before the Commissioner of Lands could allot. The Petitioner produced only the certificate, without the application, council minutes, letter of no objection, PDP, letter of allotment or acceptance. The land was also gazetted as prison land and thus not unalienated government land available for allocation.
Res sub judice and abuse of process
The Petition was barred by the doctrine of res sub judice and constituted an abuse of the court process, having been filed to defeat the pending EACC recovery suit.
The Petitioner was aware of Isiolo ELC E003/E004 of 2021 in which the EACC sought to invalidate its title, having filed a defence therein. It should have filed a counterclaim in that suit. Filing the petition was a deliberate and premeditated scheme to procure a judgment in rem to gag the Interested Party, falling within the concept of abuse of process as expounded by the Supreme Court.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is an end product; where its validity is impugned the bearer must prove the root of title by adducing the transactional documents leading to its issuance.
- Indefeasibility of title cannot be deployed to countenance an illegality; a title procured unprocedurally, irregularly or illegally does not attract Article 40(3) protection.
- Trust land could only be alienated by the Commissioner of Lands subject to the approval and recommendation of the designated local authority.
- A later suit between the same parties over the same subject matter pending before a competent court is barred by res sub judice.
- A suit filed for collateral purposes to defeat pending proceedings constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Cost of the Petition be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Respondent; and the Interested Party only.
- 3.The Costs in terms of [ii] above shall be agreed upon and in default to be taxed in the conventional manner.
- 4.The court refrained from addressing the question of revocation of title because that issue is sub judice in ELC E004 of 2021.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40 and 64 of the Constitution, 2010 (petition for enforcement of property rights); constitutional petition under Article 22/23 framework
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Petitioner is the lawful and registered proprietor of LR No. 7918/736
Petitioner failed to prove the root of title; the certificate of title was procured in vacuum over land reserved as prison land
Declaration of infringement of property rights and fair administrative action
Petitioner not entitled to Article 40(3) protection because the title was coloured with illegality and irregularity
Injunction, mandamus, certiorari, damages and general reliefs
Petition dismissed as unproven and as an abuse of process barred by res sub judice
Costs
Cost of the Petition be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Respondent; and the Interested Party only, to be agreed upon and in default taxed in the conventional manner.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Petition be and is hereby dismissed.
Cost of the Petition be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Respondent; and the Interested Party only.
the certificate of title cannot accrue and or attract the protection underpinned by article 40(3) of the constitution.
it behoves the bearer to account for the certificate of title and in particular, to demonstrate the process leading to the acquisition of title.
the instant petition is/ was prohibited by the doctrine of res sub judice.
It is clearly an abuse of the court process. Period.
Even though I have found and held that the Petitioner did not accrue and or acquire lawful title to the suit property, I have restrained myself from venturing forward to address the question of revocation because the said issue is sub judice ELC E004 of 2021.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting case numbers for the pending EACC suit: the judgment alternately cites ELC No. E 004 of 2021 and ELC E003 of 2021 for the same previous suit
Inconsistent date of the 1st Respondent's replying affidavit: earlier described as sworn 30th November 2023, later as sworn 30th November 2024
Petition records state the certificate of title was issued on 12th august 2016 although the background of the land as trust/prison land raises chronology questions; the court did not resolve this expressly
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karamoh Impex and Transport Limited v County Government of Isiolo & 2 others (Petition E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 3rd October 2023 (Isiolo). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4481/eng@2025-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.