A company-land transaction may depend on more than an allocation document. Membership, authority to act for the company and earlier court orders can all matter. But a later application to pursue an appeal does not itself reopen ownership or establish today's title position.
That distinction controls Richard Koskei Bunei & 8 others v Lorein Ranching Company & 4 others, Supreme Court of Kenya, Civil Application No. 7 of 2019, ruling delivered 26 November 2019. The court's published ruling concerns extension of time and review of refused certification, not a fresh title-merits appeal.
A long dispute behind the application
The ruling traces the dispute to the company's 1970 land purchase and competing membership claims. A 1992 consent addressed company control, subdivision and allocation. Judicial-review orders subsequently prohibited title issuance and quashed subdivision and resulting title deeds. The company then sought to set aside earlier orders and obtain other relief. These are the Supreme Court's account of earlier proceedings, not independently inspected land records. (Printed page 3, paragraphs 4–6.)
The High Court found the company's case proved in 2015, granted the prayers sought and ordered the applicants to pay suit costs. In November 2017, the Court of Appeal addressed company authority, membership and earlier consent orders; it found those consent orders fraudulent and dismissed the appeal with costs. Those are recounted lower-court findings, not a new Supreme Court criminal finding. Certification was refused on 13 February 2019. (Pages 4–5, paragraphs 7–11.)
What was requested, and why it failed
The motion dated 6 March 2019 sought review of the certification refusal, alternatively leave to appeal, an extension for the notice and proposed appeal, other appropriate orders and costs. Applicants alleged deprivation and discrimination, questioned title issuance, and challenged one court setting aside another equal-ranking court's orders. The company opposed the application, arguing delay, procedural defects and private rather than general public importance. These were competing submissions. (Pages 2 and 5–7, paragraphs 1 and 12–19.)
On time, the Supreme Court said the notice should have been filed by 6 December 2017. Certification was not a prerequisite to filing that notice. Applying its then-governing procedural framework, it required a satisfactory explanation covering the delay and found none plausible. Extension was discretionary, not an entitlement. This historical deadline is not advice on today's filing rules. (Pages 8–9, paragraphs 21–23 and 25–26.)
On certification review, the intended appeal failed the general-public-importance criteria. The equal-ranking-court question had not been determined by the Court of Appeal and could not first be entertained at this stage. (Page 10, paragraphs 28–29.)
The Supreme Court disallowed the motion in its entirety and ordered the applicants to bear the first respondent's costs. It granted no extension, certification, stay or land transfer. These operative orders must not be confused with earlier costs awards or described as a fresh ownership determination. (Page 11, paragraphs 30–31.)
Read the source without repairing it
The caption says “Lorein”; the narrative says “Lorien”. Paragraph 10 prints 252/1994 where paragraphs 5, 8 and 27 identify 253/1994. Paragraph 12 dates applicants' submissions to 3 July 2018 despite the 2019 motion. Numbering skips 24, and paragraph 16 repeats notice-of-appeal wording internally. These inconsistencies remain unresolved; the Court's reasoning and final orders control this account.
What a property file still needs
For buyers, lenders and advocates, the practical lesson is to connect membership and company-authority evidence with allocation records and the complete sequence of orders. Ask which document supports each claimed right, what order actually changed it, and what still needs verification before relying on it. Court location does not establish the property's county. Later proceedings, enforcement and current parcel rights remain unknown.
See how ArdhiScore works: available court, gazette and field evidence can support parcel monitoring and professional diligence. That support does not guarantee prevention of loss, valid title or complete coverage, and cannot replace current official records or qualified professional advice.