Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government Of Kiambu [2014] KEELC 621 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped a county government from demolishing property on privately titled land, ruling that a title deed proves ownership unless fraud is actually proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
The Plaintiffs' title deeds were prima facie evidence of ownership; the Defendant's allegations of fraud were not demonstrated at the interlocutory stage, so a prima facie case with high chances of success was established
Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act makes a certificate of title prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership, subject to challenge on fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is a party, or illegal/unprocedural acquisition. The Defendant only made bare allegations of fraud and error and adduced no demonstration that the Plaintiffs were party to any fraud. Applying the sanctity-of-title reasoning, the titles stood and the Plaintiffs had an arguable right apparently infringed by the demolition of their boundary walls.
Adequacy of damages
Damages would not adequately compensate the Plaintiffs for the demolition and further interference with their property rights
Relying on Niaz Mohamed Jan Mohamed, the court held that monetary compensation is no answer where a property right has been infringed; no amount of money can atone for a transgression against the law. Given the alleged violation of Article 40 property rights and losses estimated at over Kshs. 107 million, damages were insufficient, satisfying the second Giella condition.
Balance of convenience
The court was not in doubt and therefore did not need to determine the balance of convenience
Having found a prima facie case and that damages were inadequate, the third Giella condition was unnecessary. The court expressed no doubt on where the balance of convenience lay and declined to decide it.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is a party or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
- A party alleging fraud to impugn a title must, even at interlocutory stage, demonstrate the registered owner's involvement in the fraud
Court orders
#- 1.Application allowed — temporary injunction granted restraining the Defendant from demolishing, disposing of, tampering with, trespassing on or interfering with the suit properties pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance civil application for a temporary injunction; Articles 40 and 40(6) of the Constitution and the Land Registration Act invoked in argument
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government Of Kiambu [2014] KEELC 621 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Notice of Motion dated 2nd October 2013 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/621/eng@2014-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.