Eliud Njuguna Uno, Liquidator of Nkuene Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd v Kenya Tea Development Agency Limited & 8 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled a county government's reallocation of co-operative land to KTDA, ruling the society's registered lease could not be taken away without a hearing.
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 stood alienated in favour of the society on the basis of reservation or otherwise
- 2.Whether the 7th Respondent was seized of any mandate over the suit property subsequent to its reservation in favour of the society
- 3.Whether the actions of the 7th respondent constituted arbitrary infringements of the property rights of the society
- 4.What appropriate reliefs (if any) ought to be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether reservation of the suit property in favour of the society effected lawful alienation
Yes - the suit property was alienated vide reservation and a leasehold interest was created in favour of the society, reflected in the green card entry of 13.05.1966
PW1's uncontroverted evidence showed the society entered as lessee at the foot of the green card, with the defunct County Council of Meru as lessor, and the land reserved for the society. Absence of a certificate of lease did not defeat the title acquired by entry in the register. The land therefore ceased to be unalienated public land.
Whether the County Government of Meru had mandate to vary the reservation and re-allocate the land to KTDA
No - once alienated, the land was private land belonging to the society and outside the 7th Respondent's mandate; its resolutions were ultra vires and a nullity ab initio
The court held a county government may deal only with trust land or unalienated public land. Having become lessee, the society's interest could not be divested by resolution. Reliance on the retired Constitution's Sections 114-117 in 2012 was anachronistic since the 2010 Constitution had already commenced. The purported variation of reservation was a nullity.
Whether the 7th Respondent's actions arbitrarily infringed the society's property rights
Yes - the divestment without hearing violated Articles 10, 40, 47, 50 and related provisions
The society held protected leasehold rights. The 7th Respondent acted without affording the society or its liquidator an opportunity to be heard, breaching natural justice and due process. The court adopted the Court of Appeal's exposition on due process as a constitutional imperative under Articles 47 and 50.
Whether the petitioner proved its case to the requisite standard
Yes - the petitioner discharged the burden under Sections 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act; PW1's evidence was never controverted
The respondents 2nd and 3rd and the 7th called no evidence. The liquidator's testimony, supported by gazette notices and exhibits P1-P6, demonstrated the reservation and leasehold entry. Uncontroverted evidence on the reservation stood unchallenged, satisfying the evidentiary burden.
Legal principles established
#- Once land is reserved/alienated for a particular body or purpose, it ceases to be unalienated public land and belongs to the party in whose favour it was reserved
- A county government may only exercise mandate over trust land or unalienated public land within its jurisdiction, not over alienated private land
- An interest in land cannot be allotted, alienated or transferred where the specific parcel is not in existence or is already alienated; such transactions are nullities
- No adverse action may be taken against a person or body without affording them a hearing; this is a constitutional imperative under Articles 47 and 50
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the leasing, subdivision and transfer of land parcel No. Nkuene/Mitunguu/189 to or in favour of the 1st Respondent and its subsidiaries were unconstitutional, illegal, null and void ab initio
- 2.Declaration that the said parcel constitutes community land held in trust for the members of Nkuene Farmers' Co-operative Society [in liquidation]
- 3.Order of mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent to rectify the land register by cancelling all entries, leases, subdivisions and transfers arising from the impugned transactions
- 4.Permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants or assigns from dealing with, transferring or interfering with the suit parcel pending lawful redistribution by the liquidator
- 5.Permanent injunction restraining the 9th Respondent/Interested Party, his agents, political supporters, servants or any person acting under his instructions/incitement from trespassing, felling trees, clearing vegetation, erecting structures, allocating or otherwise interfering with the land parcel
- 6.Order directing the OCS Mitunguu Police Station to strictly enforce the court's permanent injunctions, maintain peace and facilitate removal of illegal settlers
- 7.Declaration that the respondents' conduct violated Articles 10, 27, 40, 47 and 63 of the Constitution and the principles of good governance, public participation and transparency
- 8.Costs of the petition awarded to the Petitioner, to be borne by the 7th Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - petition under Articles 10, 27, 40, 47, 50 and 63 (Environment and Land Court original jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Relief against the 1st Respondent (KTDA) as a participating party
The petition against the 1st Respondent was withdrawn before hearing; KTDA never filed a response
Costs
Costs of the petition awarded to the Petitioner, to be borne by the 7th Respondent.
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.
A declaration be and is hereby issued that the leasing, subdivision and transfer of land parcel No. Nkuene/Mitunguu/189 to or in favor of the 1st Respondent and its subsidiaries were unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void ad initio.
An order of Mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the 2nd Respondent to rectify the land register by cancelling all entries, leases, subdivisions, and transfers arising from the impugned transactions.
Costs of this Petition be and are hereby awarded to the Petitioner.
The society may not have been issued with the certificate of lease, but the fact that their name was captured/reflected in the green card as the lessee, denotes that same had acquired title to or entitlements over the suit property.
Simply put, the suit land was not unalienated public land, which the 7th Respondent could purport to reallocate or otherwise.
an action taken by the Commissioner of Lands without legal authority is a nullity; such an action, however, technically correct, is a mere nullity, and not only voidable but void with no effect
Issues in the judgment
#Register opening date stated inconsistently as 1966 and 1996
Amended petition dated 19.06.2026 in a 2015 petition; submissions dated 2026
Date of promulgation of the 2010 Constitution misstated
Court declares land community land despite holding it is private land of the society
Orders issued against a 9th Respondent/Interested Party not named in the caption
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eliud Njuguna Uno, Liquidator of Nkuene Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd v Kenya Tea Development Agency Limited & 8 others", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E017 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6095/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.