Table of Contents
Kevian Industries chairman Kimani Rugendo is asking the Court of Appeal to clear his path to the Supreme Court in a coastal land dispute that has run for years and now faces a restart.
Rugendo wants the appellate court to certify that his intended appeal raises a matter of public importance, a legal threshold required before the Supreme Court can take up most disputes.
At the heart of his bid is a recent Court of Appeal decision that ordered a full retrial in the Environment and Land Court after judges were moved from the case before judgment. The appeal bench, made up of Justices Francis Tuiyott, Lydiah Achode and Aggrey Muchelule, said the matter must be heard again from the beginning, this time before a different judge.
Through lawyer Phillip Nyachoti, Rugendo argues the retrial order is excessive and could set an unsettling precedent. He says the court should have considered narrower options, including allowing the judge who heard the witnesses to finalize the decision, rather than sending parties back to square one.
Nyachoti told the court that a policy of defaulting to retrials would punish litigants for administrative changes they did not cause. He warned it would waste judicial time, raise costs and make it harder to complete old cases where witnesses may have moved, died or forgotten key details.
He also argued that the approach could create practical disruption across the judiciary, where transfers are common. He said requiring the original judge to write every judgment could mean files would have to follow judges from station to station, complicating case management and fueling delays.
In the ruling Rugendo wants reviewed, the Court of Appeal faulted the way the trial was concluded after Justice Charles Yano heard evidence and later left the court. The judges said another judge, Justice Lucas Naikuni, should not have moved to determine the case in those circumstances. The bench added that Yano ought to have been allowed to prepare the judgment, but it also pointed to the passage of time, noting that years had gone by since Yano last handled the file. The court concluded the cleanest solution was a retrial before a judge other than Naikuni or Yano.
The underlying suit pits Rugendo against British national Sheila Loveridge over a parcel near Malindi, with both sides relying on title documents.
Rugendo has said he bought the land in 1974 for 5,000 Kenyan shillings and later received a title dated Dec. 8, 1978. He says he discovered in 2008 that another party had moved onto the property and carried out development, prompting his court fight.
Loveridge’s claim traces through earlier buyers, including Dr. Kawaljeet Singh, who testified that he bought the land in 2004 after checks showed it was unoccupied and properly registered, then later sold it to Loveridge for 700,000 euros.
Other witnesses, Swaleh Mohamed and Hamisi Ayubu, have said they were original occupants, were registered during adjudication and later sold the land. Rugendo has alleged wrongdoing by a land registrar, who denied fraud and said official records showed Mohamed and Ayubu as registered owners.
Rugendo is asking the Supreme Court to clarify how courts should handle part heard cases disrupted by transfers and whether proportionate remedies should come before restarting a trial. The Court of Appeal will decide whether to certify the matter for the Supreme Court or send the dispute back for a new hearing.