United Care Ltd v Macharia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 320 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4091 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled you cannot force the party you sued to hand over documents proving your own land ownership claim.
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 2nd Defendant should be compelled to produce documents and its officers summoned to testify
- 2.Whether the 1st Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 16th February 2026 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the National Land Commission could be compelled to produce acquisition records and have its officers testify
The application was refused. The plaintiff could not shift its burden of proof onto the defendant it sued, and the proper avenue for state-held information was the Access to Information Act procedure.
The court applied Order 16 Rules 1 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Court of Appeal's decision in Stanley Mombo Amuti, holding that failure by a party to call a witness or produce documents is itself conduct evidence. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to prepare its case and obtain relevant documents before filing suit, not to rely on the opponent. Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act do not override this principle.
Whether the court lacks jurisdiction and whether the exhaustion doctrine bars the suit in favour of the Land Acquisition Tribunal
The Preliminary Objection was premature. The plaintiff's claim is for ownership of compulsorily acquired land, not a dispute about the acquisition process or quantum of compensation, which alone would fall to the Tribunal.
Relying on Muthinja on exhaustion and Simandi Investments on the Tribunal's remit, the court noted that ownership and title questions fall outside the Land Acquisition Tribunal's jurisdiction. Reading the plaint and the application, there is no prayer for determination of a dispute relating to compulsory acquisition, so the objection on jurisdiction and exhaustion failed.
Legal principles established
#- In an adversarial system a party cannot compel the opponent to produce documents or call witnesses to support the party's own case
- A party seeking information held by a state entity must follow the procedure in the Access to Information Act, with recourse to the Commission on Administrative Justice
- The Land Acquisition Tribunal is competent only over disputes arising from the process and quantum of compensation; questions of ownership and title fall to courts with jurisdiction over land titles
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 2nd February 2026 is disallowed
- 2.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 16th February 2026 is disallowed
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, Section 13 (invoked by the Plaintiff; court's jurisdiction contested under Section 133C of the Land Act)
Relief refused
#Order compelling the 2nd Defendant (National Land Commission) to produce the entire file and records of the compulsory acquisition of L.R. No. 209/12151
A litigant cannot compel the opposing party to produce documents to support its own case; the proper route was the Access to Information Act procedure and complaint to the Commission on Administrative Justice
Order summoning the Chairman or an officer of the 2nd Defendant to testify on the compulsory acquisition
It is irregular to summon the opponent's officers to prove the plaintiff's own claim; parties must prove their own cases in an adversarial system
1st Defendant's Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies
Premature, as the Plaintiff's claim is one of ownership of land, not a dispute on compulsory acquisition or compensation, which would fall to the Land Acquisition Tribunal
Costs
Costs will be in the cause.
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 foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application and Notice of Preliminary Objection unmerited and will disallow them.
Costs will be in the cause.
I opine that it was incumbent upon the Plaintifi to prepare for its case, obtain relevant documents prior to filing its case and not rely on the opponent to furnish it with documents to support its claim.
while the Tribunal is competent to deal with disputes strictly arising from the process and quantum of compensation, questions of ownership and title fall outside its remit and are properly determined by courts vested with jurisdiction over land titles.
I find the Notice of Preliminary Objection premature.
Issues in the judgment
#The court associates itself with exhaustion jurisprudence relied on by the 1st Defendant but finds the objection premature without expressly reconciling that tension; also the body of the judgment repeatedly refers to Order 1 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the Plaintiff cited Order 16 Rule 7
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "United Care Ltd v Macharia & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 320 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4091 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4091/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.