Businessman Richard Kimani has taken his long-running land dispute to the Supreme Court after filing a notice of appeal challenging a Court of Appeal judgment delivered in December 2025. The dispute revolves around ownership of a prime parcel of land in Kwale County and has spanned several decades, multiple courts, and competing title claims.
Kimani says he is dissatisfied with the appellate court’s decision, which overturned a High Court ruling that had declared him the lawful owner of land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/676. The move signals the latest chapter in a case that has raised significant questions about land registration, judicial procedure, and fairness in property disputes.
The Court of Appeal ruling effectively reset the case, ordering a fresh hearing before a different judge. Kimani now wants the Supreme Court to intervene and reinstate the High Court judgment that had affirmed his ownership.
Richard Kimani Land Dispute Heads to Supreme Court
In his notice of appeal, Kimani argues that the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court judgment without addressing the substance of the land dispute. He is seeking to overturn the appellate decision and restore the ruling that had recognised him as the rightful owner.
The appeal court bench, made up of Justices Francis Tuiyott, Lydia Achode, and Aggrey Muchelule, overturned the judgment of the Environment and Land Court that had been delivered in January 2022. That judgment had been authored by Justice L. L. Naikuni.
According to the appellate judges, the judgment could not stand because it was written by a judge who had not heard any of the witnesses testify during the trial.
Procedural Flaw at the Centre of the Ruling
The Court of Appeal found that the trial had been fully conducted before Justice Charles Yano, who heard and observed all the witnesses. An express order had been issued that Justice Yano would prepare and deliver the judgment.
However, that order was never formally set aside. Instead, Justice Naikuni wrote and delivered the judgment, prompting Sheila Loveridge, the opposing party, to challenge the process on appeal.
The appellate court agreed with her argument, holding that justice would have been better served if the judge who heard the witnesses had concluded the matter. As a result, the court declined to determine the substantive ownership issues and instead nullified the judgment in its entirety.
Competing Titles Over Kwale Land
The Richard Kimani land dispute centres on two competing certificates of title over the 0.9-hectare parcel in Kwale County. Kimani holds a title issued in December 1978, while British national Sheila Loveridge holds another title traced to transactions that began in 2004.
Kimani maintains that he purchased the land in 1974 for Ksh.5,000 and that his name appeared in official land adjudication records before he was issued with a title. He says he only discovered in 2008 that the land had been occupied and developed by another party.
According to Kimani, the land was sold to Loveridge through intermediaries, despite his earlier registration.
Fraud Allegations and High Court Findings
At the High Court, Kimani accused several parties, including a former Kwale Land Registrar, of fraud. He alleged that land records were unlawfully altered to dispossess him of property he lawfully owned.
The trial court agreed with his claims. It ruled that Kimani’s title was the first registration, awarded him damages, ordered the cancellation of Loveridge’s title, and directed her eviction from the land.
Those findings, however, were swept aside by the Court of Appeal on procedural grounds, without addressing the merits of the fraud allegations or ownership claims.
Appeal Court Orders Fresh Hearing
After nullifying the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal ordered that the case be heard afresh before a different judge of the Environment and Land Court. The judges cited the passage of time and the need for fairness as reasons for a retrial.
They also directed that the matter be prioritised and heard on an expedited basis. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Kimani’s move to the Supreme Court now seeks to reverse that outcome and revive the High Court ruling in his favour. As the Richard Kimani land dispute enters its next phase, the Supreme Court’s response could determine whether the case returns to trial or whether the earlier findings on ownership are reinstated.
