Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Karamoh Impex & Transport Limited & 8 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's anti-corruption agency lost its bid to reclaim Isiolo land for a prison because it could not prove the land was ever reserved.
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 suit property formed part and parcel of land which had been reserved for Isiolo G K Prison or otherwise
- 2.Whether the allocation of the suit property to the 1st Defendant was lawful
- 3.Whether the 1st Defendant acquired lawful rights thereto
- 4.What appropriate reliefs (if any) ought to issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property was reserved for Isiolo GK Prison
No - the gazette notice covered only buildings, the development plan 117/75/1 lacked approval particulars and probative value, and the 2006 plan superseded it and converted the area to industrial use
The gazette notice of 1977 referenced only buildings gazetted as a third class prison, not the 'Prison Farm' from which the suit property purportedly arose. Its contents could not be expanded by oral evidence given section 97 of the Evidence Act. Development plan 117/75/1 did not show who prepared or approved it, and PW3 admitted the 2006 plan superseded it, converting the area to industrial use. The plaintiff therefore failed to prove reservation.
Whether the allocation to the 1st Defendant was lawful
Yes - the allotment documents were verified and authenticated by the NLC, the stand premium was paid and receipted, and the plaintiff could not impeach the NLC's decision
The allotment, Part Development Plan, survey and lease documents were forwarded to the NLC for verification and confirmed authentic, including by the plaintiff's own investigating officer (PW9). The NLC's letter of 19.02.2014 confirming lawfulness was unquashed. Payment of the premium outside 30 days was cured by the Government's acceptance and receipt, per the Cabin Crew Investments case. The plaintiff also withheld the NLC witness who recorded a statement with it.
Whether the 1st Defendant acquired lawful rights and what reliefs should issue
The 1st Defendant lawfully owns the suit property; all reliefs sought were refused and the suit dismissed
Having found the allocation lawful, the court held the title does not lend itself to cancellation. Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act confer on the registered owner the rights claimed. The prayer to compel the NLC was untenable under Articles 67(2) and 249(2); the Chief Land Registrar could not be directed to allocate; and the injunction could not issue against a registered owner. The suit against the 3rd, 4th and 6th defendants was unsupported by evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Where Government Land has been reserved for a particular purpose, it ceases to be unalienated Government Land and is not available for re-alienation or allotment
- Acceptance and payment of stand premium outside the stipulated 30 days does not invalidate an allotment where the Government accepted and receipted the payment without informing the allottee the offer had lapsed
- A party who withholds evidence in its custody that would have been adverse is presumed to have been harmed by its withholding
- The burden of proving that land was unalienated Government Land, set aside for a public purpose, or that allotment was fraudulent, lies on the party asserting it
- The mandate to administer and manage public land vests in the National Land Commission, not the Chief Land Registrar
Court orders
#- 1.The Suit be and is hereby Dismissed
- 2.Each Party shall bear own costs of the Suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (implied by the court's mandate to cancel registers under sections 26 and 80 of the Land Registration Act); no express provision cited
Relief refused
#Declaration that allocation of LR 7918/736 to the 1st Defendant was irregular, fraudulent, illegal and null and void
No evidence of reservation of the land for the prison; plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proof
Rectification of the register by cancellation of the certificate of lease
Power under sections 26 and 80 of the Land Registration Act depends on proof of fraud; no credible evidence tendered
Order compelling the National Land Commission to issue an allotment letter in favour of the Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury in trust for Isiolo GK Prison
NLC is a Chapter Fifteen commission that cannot be commanded to issue an allotment letter to a particular person; its decision of 19.02.2014 remains in situ and unquashed
Order directing the Chief Land Registrar to issue and register a lease in favour of the Cabinet Secretary, National Treasury
Mandate to administer public land vests in the NLC, not the Chief Land Registrar; allocation already found lawful
Permanent injunction against the 1st Defendant
The 1st Defendant remains the registered owner vested with lawful rights
Declaration that LR 7918/736 is public land set aside by Isiolo GK Prison
Gazette notice related only to buildings, not the prison farm; development plan 117/75/1 lacked probative value and was superseded
Costs
Each Party shall bear own costs of the Suit.
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.
Pulling the threads together, the Final Orders that commend themselves to the court are: i. The Suit be and is hereby Dismissed. ii. Each Party shall bear own costs of the Suit.
I am minded to and do hereby return a nding that the allocation of the Suit Property in favour of the First Defendant, was lawful and legitimate. In short, the First Defendant’s Title, does not lend itself to cancellation.
the withholding of the evidence of the Witness from National Land Commission by the Plainti herein, ought and must be taken to mean that the evidence of the said Witness, would have been adverse.
A court of Law acts on the basis of evidence; and not mere assertions.
the commission cannot be commanded to issue a Letter of allotment, to and in favour of a particular person.
the joinder of the Sixth Defendant herein, was not well-thought out. Be that as it may, I nd no basis for his joinder. The suit as against same, was misconceived; and still-borne.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory findings on whether the suit property was alienated or unalienated Government Land
Gazette notice cited as number 77 in evidence but 177 in findings
PW1 misidentified as Cheruyoit Kimutai Mathew (PW3) in paragraph 193
Judgment dated, signed and delivered at Meru though the case is at the Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Amended plaint date given inconsistently as 18.06.2024 and 21.06.2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Karamoh Impex & Transport Limited & 8 others", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E003 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6063/eng@2026-09-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.