A private developer has suffered another setback in its attempt to claim ownership of land allocated to the Kenya Medical Training College (KMTC) after judges declined to certify an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The decision leaves standing earlier judgments that upheld KMTC’s ownership of the property and found that the land could not lawfully be allocated to private parties after it had already been set aside for public use.
The dispute revolves around a parcel of land along Juja Road that was allocated to KMTC by the Commissioner of Lands in 1996 for the training of medical personnel. The institution accepted the allotment the following year, paid the required charges and took possession of the property.
The land was later subdivided and allocated to private developers, including Cabin Crew Investment Limited, which obtained a title deed over part of the property. The competing claims triggered a legal battle, with KMTC seeking cancellation of the private title on grounds that the land was no longer available for allocation.
The Environment and Land Court ruled in favour of KMTC in 2021, finding that once the institution accepted the allotment and met the conditions attached to it, the land ceased to be available for allocation to third parties. That decision was later upheld on appeal.
Cabin Crew Investment Limited subsequently sought certification to move the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case raised important questions about the protection of registered landowners and innocent purchasers who rely on official government records when acquiring property. The company also argued that differing court decisions on the cancellation of titles had created uncertainty in land law and warranted guidance from the country’s highest court.
The judges disagreed, finding that the legal principles raised by the applicant had already been settled by the Supreme Court. Citing the decision in Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & Others, the court emphasized that constitutional protection of property rights does not extend to unlawfully acquired titles.
“Having found that the 1st registered owner did not acquire title regularly, the ownership of the suit property cannot be protected under Article 40,” the judges stated, quoting the Supreme Court.
The bench further held that the real issue in the dispute was whether the land was available for allocation when the private title was issued, a question that had already been conclusively determined by the lower courts. The judges noted that certification to appeal to the Supreme Court can only be granted where a matter goes beyond the interests of the parties involved and raises substantial questions of law affecting the public at large.
They found that the application fell short of that threshold.
“The applicant has not demonstrated that the impugned decision creates a new or uncertain point of law,” the court held.
The judges also declined to stay the execution of their earlier judgment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify such an order.
The ruling marks another defeat for Cabin Crew Investment Limited and effectively closes off the route to the Supreme Court, leaving KMTC’s ownership of the disputed property intact.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
