Court rejects Athi River residents’ bid to reopen KMC land dispute

By  Benson Matheka

Correspondent

Residents of Njuguini, Athi River, in Machakos County, have suffered a setback in their bid to stop the enforcement of a court judgment over land they say is home to thousands of people and properties worth billions of shillings.

The Environment and Land Court in Machakos has rejected an application by a group claiming to represent homeowners and tenants on 11.25 hectares of land within the Kenya Meat Commission (KMC) area, ruling that they could not join a case that had already been concluded.

In a ruling delivered on October 13, 2026, Justice A.Y. Koross struck out the application seeking to suspend and overturn a judgment delivered on July 10, 2024, which dismissed claims by Kelvin Nzioki and 53 others against the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) and KMC.

The applicants claimed that the disputed land, registered as LR No. 10281, includes Njuguini town, which they said has about 120,000 residents.

They argued that the original proceedings had been conducted without informing people whose homes and investments could be affected by the outcome.

The group, which said it represented 484 homeowners and tenants, wanted the court to allow them to participate in the case, suspend enforcement of the judgment and eventually set it aside.

But Justice Koross ruled that the applicants had never been formally admitted into the original proceedings and could not seek to reopen the dispute after judgment.

“The purported interested persons are all strangers to these proceedings, as they have never been made parties in any form,” the judge said.

The court concluded that it had completed its work on the dispute between the original parties and could not grant the orders sought through the application.

“This court finds that it is done in relation to the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants,” Justice Koross ruled.

The application, dated May 19, 2025, was struck out, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.

In their application, the residents accused the parties in the original suit of failing to disclose that the disputed land included an established settlement with homeowners and tenants whose interests could be affected.

They claimed to have invested billions of shillings in properties after receiving assurances from the former Municipal Council of Mavoko, now succeeded by the County Government of Machakos, and the national government that leases would be issued.

One of the applicants, Sebastian Kyalo Mutiso, said he had been allocated a portion of the land by the former municipal council.

The group presented copies of four title documents, temporary allotment letters, transfer documents, council minutes and some sale agreements in support of its claims.

They argued that the court should hear them before enforcement of the judgment proceeded.

However, the judge did not determine the validity of the documents presented by the applicants. Instead, the court focused on whether they could be admitted into a case after judgment had already been delivered.

Justice Koross acknowledged that some applicants appeared to have an interest in the land but said this did not automatically entitle them to join concluded proceedings.

EPZA opposed the application, arguing that the court had already determined the dispute and could not reopen it at the request of people who were not parties to the suit.

On grounds of opposition dated October 8, 2025, the authority said the applicants had not followed the proper procedure for joining the case.

It also argued that they had failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for suspending enforcement of the judgment or setting it aside, and that their application had been filed almost a year after the decision.

KMC also opposed the application through an affidavit sworn by Anthony Ademba on October 6, 2025.

The commission argued that the applicants had never been formally admitted into the proceedings and had not appealed against the judgment.

It maintained that granting the orders sought would interfere with its property rights as the recognised owner of the disputed land.

The applicants maintained that their interests had not been represented in the original case. In a further affidavit sworn on January 16, 2026, Josephine Muindu reiterated their position and argued that the Director of Surveys and the Attorney-General should also have been included in the proceedings.

Justice Koross said the law envisages interested parties joining a case while proceedings are still ongoing, rather than after the dispute has been determined.

The judge also questioned how the applicants had purported to include the Attorney-General and the County Government of Machakos without obtaining the court's permission.

In the July 10, 2024 judgment, the court dismissed the case by Kelvin Nzioki and 53 others against EPZA and KMC and entered judgment in favour of the defendants on their counterclaim.

The plaintiffs had claimed to be allottees of land from the former Municipal Council of Mavoko in an area they described as KMC Phase III.

However, the court found that there was no land known as KMC Phase III and that the municipal council's town clerk had no authority to sign the allotment letters relied on by the plaintiffs.

The court struck out the residents' application because they had not been parties to the original proceedings and the case had already been concluded.

Follow ourWhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.