Some land disputes turn less on final ownership than on forum and procedure. In Market Plaza Limited v Commissioner for Lands & 3 others [2019] eKLR, the Court of Appeal did not conduct a full trial over who finally owned LR No. 209/1855/2. It reviewed whether the High Court was wrong to refuse discretionary judicial-review relief.
The decision was delivered at Nairobi on 26 August 2019 by W. Ouko (P), R. N. Nambuye and M. Warsame, JJ.A in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2017. The appeal arose from Odunga J's decision of 22 September 2016 in Miscellaneous JR Application No. 18 of 2011. Judgment PDF (printed pp. 1 and 6)
The public-market background was material
The appellant said it held the Nairobi parcel through a transfer from the City Council of Nairobi and a 99-year government lease running from 1 August 1928. The court also recorded the competing public-land story: parent parcel LR No. 209/1855 was said to have been reserved for a municipal market, later subdivided, with LR No. 209/1855/1 left to the City Council for public-market use. Judgment PDF (printed pp. 1-2)
The trigger was a registry act. The Registrar of Titles placed a caveat on LR No. 209/1855/2 for non-payment of stamp duty and later revoked the title through Gazette Notice No. 15580 dated 26 November 2010. The recorded reason was that converting public land into private development land without required procedures was contrary to law. Judgment PDF (printed p. 2)
Those facts mattered. But they did not turn the appeal into a final ownership trial.
Judicial review was the narrow gate
Market Plaza challenged the Registrar's power to cancel title outside a court-directed process under the Registration of Titles Act. The respondents argued that title validity, acquisition and ownership belonged in other or pending civil proceedings, including HCC No. 1059 of 2000 and ELC No. 544 of 2017. Judgment PDF (printed pp. 2-3)
The Court of Appeal treated the issue as one of judicial-review discretion. It emphasised that judicial review generally addresses legality and procedure, not the merits of competing title claims. It also accepted that courts may balance private rights against public interest, and that ordinary civil proceedings can be the better forum for title authenticity or ownership unless exceptional circumstances justify judicial-review relief. Judgment PDF (printed pp. 3-5)
That distinction is commercially important. Reading only the Gazette revocation, or only the dismissal of the appeal, can make the case sound more final than it was.
The order was dismissal with costs
The Court found no reason to interfere with Odunga J's exercise of discretion. It said there was no basis to say the High Court judge misdirected himself, misapprehended the facts, considered irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or reached a plainly wrong result. Judgment PDF (printed pp. 5-6)
The operative result was specific: the appeal was dismissed, with costs to be borne by the appellant. The Court of Appeal did not finally cancel LR No. 209/1855/2, validate Market Plaza's title, order transfer, order eviction, rectify the register, determine criminal guilt, or prove implementation of the Gazette revocation. Judgment PDF (printed p. 6)
Printed page 7 adds only the Kenya Law public-domain/licensing notice. It adds no further reasons, orders, title findings or later status. Judgment PDF (printed p. 7)
The due-diligence lesson
For buyers, lenders and advocates, this case is a warning against collapsing procedure into ownership. A judicial-review loss may leave the underlying title dispute alive for the proper forum. A Gazette notice can be material without proving current register status. A public-interest concern can be serious without becoming a self-executing title order.
This article describes a historical appellate judgment and the admitted compact source record. It does not state whether later ELC or High Court proceedings were resolved, whether any stay was granted, whether the register changed, who currently occupies the land, or who holds enforceable title today. ArdhiScore helps organise dated, source-linked land-risk evidence and unresolved professional questions. It is not a title certificate, official search, legal opinion, prevention guarantee or substitute for qualified advice.