Kenya Farmers’ Association v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1131 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court cancelled a landowner's title as fraudulently obtained, but refused to restore a co-operative whose own lease had long expired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who between the plaintiff and 3rd defendant is the lawful owner of the suit property
- 2.Whether the 3rd defendant lawfully acquired the suit property
- 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff had pre-emptive rights to renewal/extension of its lease
No — the lease expired in 2006 before the Land Act and the 2017 Rules came into force; the applicable repealed Government Lands Act provided no renewal mechanism for town plots
The plaintiff's 33-year lease from 1st March 1973 expired on 1st March 2006. The then-applicable Government Lands Act Cap 280 provided for renewal only of agricultural leases, not town plots. Hence section 13 of the Land Act and Legal Notice 281 of 2017 could not apply, and no pre-emptive rights arose.
Whether legitimate expectation of renewal arose
No — the plaintiff never made an application for renewal, so the NLC could not be expected to act on a non-existent application
A former lessee who complied with lease terms acquires a legitimate expectation only to fair consideration of an actual application. The plaintiff produced no evidence of any application for renewal or extension, and its advocates' instructions were not shown to have been executed.
Whether the 3rd defendant's title was lawfully acquired
No — the allocation violated section 12 of the Land Act, the allotment letter was backdated, and the registration was unprocedural, unlawful and fraudulent
The 3rd defendant applied in 2022 yet held an allotment letter dated 1998; none of the allocation methods in section 12 of the Land Act was followed; and the property was not available for allocation in 1998 as the plaintiff's lease was still subsisting. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved to a standard above balance of probability, which the plaintiff achieved.
Legal principles established
#- Registration vests absolute and indefeasible rights in a proprietor unless the title was acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, want of procedure, illegality or corruption
- An allocation of public land cannot precede the application for allocation; a backdated allotment letter is fraudulent and the allocation unprocedural
- Where a town plot lease expired under the repealed Government Lands Act without application for renewal, the land reverted to the radical landlord
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the allocation of Kakamega Town/Block III/28 to the 3rd defendant and his subsequent registration as proprietor was procured unlawfully, unprocedurally and fraudulently without compliance with the law and prescribed procedure
- 2.An order cancelling the 3rd defendant's registration as proprietor of Kakamega Town/Block III/28
- 3.That the suit property, being public land, reverts to the lessor, the County Government of Kakamega
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title/occupation of land (not expressly stated in judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that plaintiff has a first right of refusal to renew the lease
Plaintiff's lease expired in 2006; section 13 of the Land Act and the 2017 Rules did not apply; no legitimate expectation arose as plaintiff never applied for renewal
Order compelling the 1st defendant to consider the plaintiff's application for renewal of lease
No application for renewal was ever produced or evidenced; the court cannot compel consideration of a non-existent application
Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property
Not granted; the property was held to belong to the County Government of Kakamega, not the plaintiff
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
A declaration is hereby made that the allocation of the property known as Kakamega Town/ Block III/28 to the 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant’s subsequent registration as the proprietor thereof was procured unlawfully, unprocedurally and fraudulently without compliance with the law and prescribed procedure.
An order is hereby issued cancelling the 3rd defendant’s registration as proprietor of that property known as Kakamega Town/ Block III/28.
The suit property being public land, reverts to the lessor, the County Government of Kakamega.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
a title arising from an irregular or unlawful process is invalid, even if the registered owner obtained it in good faith.
The standard proof of fraud is slightly higher than the standard required in ordinary civil cases of the balance of probability, but slightly lower than the standard of proof in criminal cases of beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the 3rd defendant's 2022 application preceded the 1998 allocation by describing 2022 as '24 years before allocation', arithmetically inconsistent with a 1998 allotment date
Typographical irregularity in the citation of Sehmi v Tarabana (unclosed parenthesis and date written as '20250')
The names of the 1st and 2nd defendants are not expressly set out in the judgment; the parties are referred to only as the 1st and 2nd defendants (the 1st being described elsewhere as the National Land Commission and reversion directed to the County Government of Kakamega)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Farmers’ Association v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1131 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kakamega ELC Case (as per plaint dated 22nd August 2023) — exact number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1131/eng@2026-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.