Cabin Crew Investments Limited v Kenya Medical Training College & 4 others (Civil Appeal 441 of 2019) [2021] KECA 49 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal cancelled a company's land title, ruling the government had no power to allocate land it had already allotted to someone else.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limitation - whether KMTC's claim was statute barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The claim was not time barred because section 41 of the Act excludes land enjoyed by the Government from the limitation regime, and the suit property was occupied by KMTC staff.
The Court found as a fact that KMTC occupied the land when the allotment letter was issued to the appellant, evidenced by the appellant's attempts to evict KMTC staff after obtaining title. Land occupied by a government agency is 'land enjoyed by the Government' within section 41, so section 7 does not apply and the suit filed in 2013 was not statute barred.
Validity of the allocation of the suit property to the appellant
The allocation to Cabin Crew was invalid because by 22nd August 2000 the land was not available for alienation, the Commissioner of Lands having validated KMTC's allocation by accepting payment without revoking its allotment.
KMTC accepted its 1996 allotment and paid the requisite fees; although acceptance and payment were outside the 30-day stipulated period, the Commissioner accepted the money and issued a receipt without ever communicating withdrawal or lapse of the offer. The Commissioner therefore could not deem the land unalienated and allocate it to Cabin Crew as compensation for a double allocation.
Res judicata based on the consent in the judicial review proceedings
The res judicata argument failed because KMTC was not a party to the judicial review proceedings or the consent that purportedly divested it of its property.
The record showed that KMTC was not a party to Nairobi High Court Misc. Civil Application No. 324 of 2000 nor to the consent relied on by the appellant. A consent between other parties could not bind KMTC or dispose of its ownership of the suit property, so the ownership issue was not res judicata.
Legal principles established
#- Where a public body accepts payment under an allotment and issues a receipt without informing the allottee that the offer has lapsed, the land ceases to be available for re-allocation to another party.
- Section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act excludes claims over land enjoyed by the Government from the twelve-year limitation period in section 7.
- A grant or certificate of title issued over land that was not available for alienation cannot confer good title.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
- 2.The 2nd to 5th respondents are not entitled to costs
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction over the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cabin Crew Investments Limited v Kenya Medical Training College & 4 others (Civil Appeal 441 of 2019) [2021] KECA 49 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Appeal from ELC Nairobi; Memorandum of Appeal dated 9th September, 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/49/eng@2021-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.