Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2017] KEELC 744 (KLR)

Nkoipa Ole Sakita & another v Milia Muyiankent [2017] KEELC 744 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 November 2017
1,025 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to evict someone from land because the claimants only had a letter of allotment and skipped the required three-month eviction notice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, registered (as they alleged) owners of plot number 351/Residential - Orok (Mile 9) T. Centre, brought a Notice of Motion dated 12th July 2017 under sections 3A and 18(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act seeking eviction of the Defendant from the suit land and demolition of structures he had erected following alleged encroachment on 10th May 2017. The Defendant was served on 24th July 2017 but neither entered appearance nor filed a response, so the application proceeded unopposed. Christine Ochieng J identified a single issue: whether the Defendant should be evicted and compelled to demolish his structures pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The court held that although the application was unopposed, the orders sought were mandatory in nature. The Plaintiffs held only Letters of Allotment, which following Stephen Mburu v Comat Merchants Ltd do not constitute title to property. Applying Kenya Breweries Ltd v Washington Okeyo, the court found that mandatory injunctions are not normally granted at the interlocutory stage absent special circumstances, and the case was not sufficiently clear. Further, the Plaintiffs had not complied with section 152E of the Land Act, which requires service of a notice of not less than three months before an intended eviction. The court found the issues raised would require oral evidence at trial. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause. Judgment was delivered in open court at Kajiado on 23rd November 2017.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to mandatory interlocutory orders of eviction and demolition

Holding

No. The orders sought were mandatory in nature; the Plaintiffs held only Letters of Allotment, which do not constitute title, and no special circumstances justified granting mandatory relief at the interlocutory stage.

Reasoning

The court relied on Kimondo J's holding that a letter of allotment is not title, and on the Kenya Breweries v Okeyo test that mandatory injunctions are granted interlocutorily only in special circumstances or where the case is clear. Although unopposed, the application did not meet that threshold; ownership and the issues raised required full trial with oral evidence.

p. 2
02

Whether the Plaintiffs complied with the statutory procedure for eviction under section 152E of the Land Act

Holding

No. The Plaintiffs had not served the required three months' notice before the intended eviction.

Reasoning

Section 152E of the Land Act requires an owner who considers a person in occupation without consent to serve a written notice of not less than three months, specifying terms for removal of buildings and crops, and served on the deputy county commissioner and the OCPD. On the evidence in the supporting affidavit, the Plaintiffs had not adhered to these provisions and therefore could not seek eviction orders at the interlocutory stage.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A letter of allotment is not a title to property; it is a transient right or offer to take property.
  • A mandatory injunction will not normally be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances.
  • Before evicting a person in occupation of private land without consent, the owner must serve a statutory notice of not less than three months under section 152E of the Land Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 12th July, 2017 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs will be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsections 3A, 18(1)(a)
  • Land Actsection 152E

Cases cited (2)

  • Stephen Mburu & 4 Others vs Comat Merchants Ltd & Anor
    [2012] eKLR
  • Kenya Breweries Limited vs. Washington Okeyo
    (2002) EA 109
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 18(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nkoipa Ole Sakita & another v Milia Muyiankent [2017] KEELC 744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/744/eng@2017-11-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.