Businessman Richard Kimani challenges court decision in land dispute case

In the notice, Kimani states that he is dissatisfied with the court's decision, which set aside a High Court judgment that had declared him the lawful owner of land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/676.

The appellate bench, comprising Justices Francis Tuiyott, Lydia Achode and Aggrey Muchelule, overturned the Environment and Land Court judgment delivered on January 20, 2022, by Justice L. L. Naikuni.

The judges ruled that the case must be heard afresh after finding that the judgment was written by a judge who had not heard any of the witnesses testify.

The dispute centres on two competing certificates of title over the 0.9-hectare parcel of land. Kimani holds a title issued in December 1978, while British national Sheila Loveridge holds another title obtained through a chain of transactions beginning in 2004.

Kimani has consistently maintained that he bought the land in 1974 for Ksh.5,000 and that his name appeared in official land adjudication records before he was issued with a title.

He later discovered in 2008 that the land had been occupied and developed, leading him to learn that it had been sold to Loveridge through intermediaries.

At the High Court, Kimani accused several parties, including a former Kwale Land Registrar, of fraud, alleging that land records were unlawfully altered to dispossess him of the property. 

The trial court agreed with him, ruled that his title was the first registration, awarded him damages, ordered the cancellation of Loveridge’s title, and directed her eviction from the land.

However, on appeal, Loveridge challenged not only the findings but also the manner in which the judgment was delivered. She argued that Justice Naikuni erred by writing and delivering the judgment despite not having heard the witnesses, contrary to directions earlier issued by Justice Charles Yano, who had presided over the full trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that there was an express order that Justice Yano, who had heard and observed all witnesses, would prepare the judgment, and that this order was never formally set aside.

The appellate judges held that justice would have been better served had the judge who heard the witnesses concluded the matter.

As a result, the Court of Appeal declined to consider the substantive issues in the case and instead ordered that the entire judgment be set aside.

The judges directed that the matter be heard afresh before a different judge of the Environment and Land Court, citing the passage of time and the need for a fair retrial.

The court also ordered that the case be given priority and heard on an expedited basis, with each party bearing its own costs.

Kimani has now moved to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the appellate court’s decision and reinstate the High Court judgment that had affirmed his ownership of the disputed land.