Center for Litigation Trust v Sunnex Enterprises Limited & 8 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4818 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

27 July 2026

AOAntony O. Ombwayo

5,317 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a trust's bid to recover public land, confirming that land recovery belongs to the EACC, not private litigants.

What this practically means

Executive summary

Center For Litigation Trust, a Mombasa-based public-spirited trust, petitioned the Environment and Land Court under Articles 258(1)(a) and 258(1)(c) of the Constitution seeking declarations that Land Parcels Mombasa/XXVI/1081, 1082 and 1015 (subdivisions of former EAC property, Mombasa/XXVI/269, in Kizingo, Mombasa) are public land vesting in the National Land Commission and Kenya Revenue Authority; that their acquisition and transfer to Sunnex Enterprises Limited (2001) and Delgreen Limited (2006) was fraudulent, irregular and null and void ab initio; and orders for surrender, eviction, rectification and cancellation of the register, expungement of survey records, and a permanent injunction against Delgreen. Delgreen opposed the petition, arguing want of locus standi, vagueness, material non-disclosure, forum shopping, and that the matter was sub judice given consolidated suits (ELC Nos. 21, 22 and 25 of 2023 and 55 of 2008) over the same property in which KRA had counterclaimed. The 1st respondent, Sunnex Enterprises Limited, was never served, and the petitioner filed no submissions. Ombwayo J held that recovery of public land is a function conferred by Section 11(1)(j) of the EACC Act on the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, not on a private trust, so the petitioner lacked standing. The court further found the petition sub judice and an abuse of the court process given the pending consolidated suits over the same parcel, parties and issues. The petition was dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.

Questions the Court framed

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

1.Whether the petitioner has locus standi to institute and maintain the petition
2.Whether Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/269 was ever boarded for disposal in accordance with the Government Financial Regulations or procedures Chapter 19 and The Ministry of Works Circular No. 2/58 of 1st March 1958
3.Whether the subdivision, amalgamation, alienation and/or allocation of Land Parcel No. Mombasa/XXVI/269 was fraudulent, irregular, unlawful or illegal
4.Whether the transfer by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent of Land Parcels Mombasa/XXVI/1081, 1082 and 1015 was fraudulent, irregular, unlawful or illegal
5.Whether the suit properties are protected under Article 40 of the Constitution
6.Whether the titles over the suit properties should be cancelled
7.Whether the petition is sub judice and an abuse of the court process

Key legal issues

Locus standi of a public-spirited trust to sue for recovery of public land

Holding

The petitioner lacks standing because recovery of public land is a statutory function of the EACC under Section 11 of the EACC Act, not of a private trust

Reasoning

The court observed that the prayers sought are principally within the ambit of the EACC, which under Section 11(1)(j) of the EACC Act may institute and conduct proceedings for recovery or protection of public property. Since such power is bestowed on the EACC, a petitioner attempting to recover land on behalf of KRA and the EACC cannot claim standing, notwithstanding the liberal approach to locus standi under Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution.

p. 17

Sub judice and abuse of court process

Holding

The petition is sub judice and an abuse of process because consolidated suits (ELC No. 21 of 2023, 22 of 2023, 25 of 2023 and 55 of 2008) involving the same parcel, parties and issues are already pending

Reasoning

The court accepted the 2nd respondent's submission that pending consolidated suits over the same land were earlier filed in the same court, involving the same parties and the same issues of ownership, possession and occupation. The petitioner, a public-spirited body, could not feign ignorance since the EACC and KRA were already litigating recovery of the same land. Relying on the sub judice principle in Republic v Kariuki, the court declined to entertain parallel proceedings.

p. 17

Legal principles established

The power to recover public property on behalf of the government is vested in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission under Section 11(1)(j) of the EACC Act, not in private or public-spirited litigants
The sub judice rule bars parallel litigation over the same cause of action, subject matter and relief between parties before courts of concurrent jurisdiction

Court orders

1.The petition is dismissed with costs

The bench

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Antony O. OmbwayoJ

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked: Articles 22, 258(1)(a) and 258(1)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (invoked by the petitioner)

Relief refused

Declaration that the houses and developments on Land Parcels Mombasa/XXVI/1081, 1082 and 1015 remain Government property under KRA

The court found the petitioner lacked locus standi, as the power to recover public land is vested in the EACC, not a private trust

p. 17

Declaration that the suit properties are public land under Article 62 and vest in the National Land Commission