Government of Makueni County v Njenga & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1279 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Makueni County lost its claim over a Konza land parcel because it could not prove fraud or that the land was public property.
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 Plaintiff is the lawful proprietors of the suit property
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff has proved fraud and illegality in the registration of the 2nd Defendant as proprietor of the suit property
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved the suit property was public utility vested in it / within Makueni County
Claim failed; no evidence of conversion of the land from private to public land
Under Section 9(2)(c) of the Land Act, private land may become public land only through compulsory acquisition, reversion of leasehold, transfers or surrender. The plaintiff produced no evidence of surrender, no gazette notice transferring the land, register or records from Machakos to Makueni, nor that commercial Plot No. 2671 was reserved as a public utility. The court therefore could not vest the property in Makueni County.
Whether fraud and illegality were proved in the registration of the 1st and 2nd Defendants
Not proved; the 2nd Defendant's title is valid and protected
Fraud must be distinctly alleged and proved and cannot be inferred. PW1 conceded on cross-examination that he had no evidence of forgery, conspiracy or that the title was a forgery. The 2nd Defendant produced an allotment letter, evidence of payment and transfer processes, and approvals from the Ministry of Lands, showing no semblance of fraud in the chain from Malili Ranch Cooperative Society through the 1st Defendant to him.
Standard of proof applicable
Balance of probabilities, with the seriousness of the allegation weighing in the assessment
Citing In re Estate of Francis Waita Mbaki (Deceased), the court applied the balance of probability standard, noting that the more serious the allegation (such as fraud), the stronger the evidence required before it is established, though the standard itself does not rise above the balance of probabilities.
Legal principles established
#- Fraud must be specifically pleaded, its particulars set out, and distinctly proved; it cannot be inferred from facts
- A registered proprietor's title is prima facie indefeasible and can only be challenged on proof of fraud/misrepresentation or illegality under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (no specific provision cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the certificate of title for Konza North/Konza North Block 2 (Malili)/4285 was fraudulently obtained and is null and void
The Plaintiff failed to prove fraud or that the land was public utility
Declaration that the suit property is within the territorial boundary of Makueni County
No gazette notice or evidence of surrender/conversion of the land to Makueni County was adduced
Cancellation of registration of the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants
No evidence of fraud or conspiracy in the registrations
Eviction and permanent injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants
The claim failed; the 2nd Defendant's title is valid and protected
Costs
The suit is dismissed with costs (to the Defendants).
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.
In the end, the Plaintifi has failed to substantiate its claim against the Defendants on a balance of probabilities. The suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is also settled law that fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and as distinctly proved, and it is not allowable to leave fraud to be inferred from the facts.
this court cannot make a finding that the suit property should be vested within the territory of Makueni County or that the suit property is a public utility reserved for the Plaintifi
There is no semblance of fraud in the pertinent processes leading to his registration. The 2nd Defendant's title is therefore valid and enjoys the protection of Section 25 (1) of the Land Registration Act.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is erratic and duplicated (multiple paragraphs numbered '26' and '27')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Government of Makueni County v Njenga & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1279 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO E004 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1279/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.