Kathurima (Now Deceased and Substituted by Sarah Mwaka Kathurima) v County Government of Meru & another (Environment and Land Case 79 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 5050 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru confirmed a family's ownership of two Meru plots, ruling that the county government failed to prove the land was public.
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 late Henry Muthee Kathurima is the registered proprietor of land parcel numbers Meru Municipality Block II/870 and 871
- 2.Whether the two parcels are public lands
- 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the amended plaint
Key legal issues
#Whether the deceased was the registered proprietor of Meru Municipality Block II/870 and 871
Yes. Certificates of lease, official searches and the testimony of a Deputy Director of Land Administration confirmed registration of the deceased as proprietor on 30/6/2003, unrebutted by any defence evidence.
The plaintiff produced registered titles and two official searches confirming the deceased's registration. An independent government witness, Elias Kaburu, produced the correspondence file and confirmed the parcels arose from subdivision of parcel II/805 allocated to the deceased. The 1st defendant, though denying registration in its defence, tendered no evidence to controvert the plaintiff's proof.
Whether the two parcels are public lands
No. The 1st defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the titles were null and void because the land was public land.
The 1st defendant pleaded that the parcels were public lands and the titles null and void, but elected not to tender evidence. The plaintiff showed the lands were allocated to the deceased, surveyed out of parcel II/805, with a portion surrendered to the local authority. Under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act and Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, the burden lay on the party impugning the titles, which it failed to discharge.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought
Prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the amended plaint were granted; the claim for general damages was refused for lack of pleadings, evidence and submissions on quantum and the liable defendant.
The findings on proprietorship and indefeasibility of title entitled the estate to declaration, permanent injunction and lifting of the restriction. However, on general damages the court held that without specific pleadings, evidence and submissions identifying the liable defendant and quantum for each limb, it could not award damages; awarding figures would be plucking numbers from the air.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is a party, or where the title was acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
- A party alleging that registered titles are null and void on the ground that the land is public land bears the burden of proving that allegation, and failure to tender evidence is fatal to the allegation
- In the absence of impeaching evidence, a court is obliged to accept registered titles as indefeasible and protect them under Article 40 of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of L.R Nos Meru Municipality Block II/870 and 871 and is entitled to vacant possession thereof
- 2.A permanent order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's ownership, user, occupation and enjoyment of Meru Municipality Block II/870 and 871
- 3.An order for lifting of the restriction placed over LR Nos Meru Municipality Block II/870 and 871
- 4.The two defendants to bear costs of the plaintiff in equal portions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction), the plaintiff being the registered proprietor of the suit parcels seeking declaration, injunction and lifting of a restriction
Relief refused
#General damages for trespass and for the irregular registration of a restriction against the plaintiff's land
No evidence was tendered on damages, and the pleadings and submissions were not specific on the liable defendant or the amounts for each limb; the court declined to assign unsupported figures
Costs
The two defendants will bear costs of the plaintiff in equal portions, costs following the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
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 absence of any controverting evidence, the court finds that the late Henry Muthee Kathurima is the registered proprietor of land parcel numbers Meru Municipality Block II/870 and 871
having elected not to tender evidence, the 1st defendant failed to prove the allegation that the suit parcels are public lands
Due to the above omissions, there will be no award of general damages.
Consequently, the two defendants will bear costs of the plaintiff in equal portions.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in paragraph 8: after recording that parcel 805 was subdivided into 870, 871 and 872, the text states 'the deceased retained parcel numbers 871 and 872', whereas the rest of the judgment (paragraphs 22 and 20) consistently state the deceased retained parcels 870 and 871 and surrendered parcel 872
Paragraph 5 states the deceased was leased the two parcels for 99 years 'from 30/6/2003 (sic)' and marked with '(sic)', leaving the correct lease commencement date unclear; paragraph 4 also contains apparent typographical garbling in the quoted statutory text of Section 26(1)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kathurima (Now Deceased and Substituted by Sarah Mwaka Kathurima) v County Government of Meru & another (Environment and Land Case 79 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 5050 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Meru ELC Case No 79 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5050/eng@2026-07-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.