A title document and an official search can raise different questions from the history of the land's allocation. In a dispute involving land previously allocated for a public purpose, the Court of Appeal focused on whether the land had remained available for a later private allocation at all.
In Cabin Crew Investment Limited v Kenya Medical Training College and four others, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. SUP. E005 of 2021, ruling dated 12 June 2026, the applicant sought certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The court dismissed the application with no order as to costs. This was a certification decision following an earlier appeal, not a fresh trial of ownership. (Paragraphs 1 and 17-18.)
The earlier allocation mattered
The ruling recounts a dispute between the company and Kenya Medical Training College, or KMTC, over the same parcel. According to that account, the Commissioner of Lands had allotted it to KMTC in December 1996 for its public mandate. KMTC acknowledged the offer and paid the required fees in early 1997. Its staff occupied the land while processing of the grant remained with the authorities. (Paragraph 8.)
The Commissioner later subdivided land and allocated plots to private developers, with the disputed property allocated to the applicant, which received a title. KMTC challenged the private title. The trial court held that land held or occupied by the government agency was not unalienated government land merely because a title had not yet been issued to that agency. (Paragraph 9.)
The earlier Court of Appeal decision affirmed that the subsequent allocation was invalid: KMTC's allocation had been validated by acceptance of payment and had not been revoked. The later allotment letter and resulting certificate therefore could not confer good title on the company. These are the earlier findings as recounted in this certification ruling. (Paragraph 10.)
Why the proposed further appeal was refused
The applicant argued that the dispute raised questions extending beyond the parties. It invoked protection of registered titles, alleged inconsistency between earlier decisions and questioned the State's responsibility towards purchasers relying on government land records, including official searches. Those were arguments for certification, not findings that the State owed compensation in this case. (Paragraphs 2-6.)
The court explained that certification under Article 163(4)(b) required a matter of general public importance transcending the litigants' private interests. A substantial legal question needed a significant public bearing; dissatisfaction with factual outcomes or an apprehended miscarriage of justice was not enough by itself. (Paragraphs 11-13.)
Applying that threshold, the court considered the relevant principle settled. It referred to Dina Management when explaining that title obtained through an unlawful process does not become indefeasible merely because it is registered. The source's discussion of that authority is reported here; it is not a separate review of the Dina judgment. (Paragraph 14.)
The decisive question remained whether the land was available for allocation when the applicant obtained its title, rather than simply whether it had relied on official records. Both earlier courts had found it unavailable. The applicant had not demonstrated a new or uncertain legal point warranting certification, so the application failed without a costs order. (Paragraphs 15-17.)
A record to investigate, not a guarantee
For a buyer or adviser, the lesson is to distinguish evidence of registration from evidence supporting the original allocation. Questions about prior public use, accepted allotments and any lawful revocation may need investigation alongside the current register. This account does not establish present registry status or later proceedings.
See how ArdhiScore works with parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence. Coverage varies. Such evidence can help frame further checks, but cannot guarantee detection of every dispute, prevention of loss or clean title, and does not replace official searches or professional advice.