Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 24/6/2016)· [2017] KEELC 947 (KLR)

Cynthia Wanjiru Gitonga v Christine Njoki & another [2017] KEELC 947 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 November 2017
BEB M Eboso
2,045 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court froze all dealings and construction on a disputed Umoja plot, finding the buyer's 2013 title was registered by a council that no longer existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, alleging allocation of Plot No. B55 Umoja Innercore Sector III by the defunct City Council of Nairobi by allotment letter dated 26/11/2008, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 24/6/2016 seeking to restrain the defendants from dealing with or developing the plot, an order for demolition of structures, and an order that the 1st defendant vacate. She relied on payment receipts, rates receipts and a Nairobi City County search certificate confirming her ownership. The 1st defendant asserted she purchased the property, by then registered as Nairobi/Umoja Block 83/1584, from Lilian Wanjiru Muiruri for KShs.4,000,000, producing a lease registered on 23/4/2013, a sale agreement, a transfer and a certificate of lease dated 23/6/2015, denying any fraud. The 2nd defendant filed no response. Both parties cited the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, Mrao and Nguruman on prima facie cases. The court noted that the lease founding the 1st defendant's title was presented for registration on 23/4/2013, after the City Council of Nairobi had ceased to exist following the 4/3/2013 general election, casting doubt on her title. Finding the circumstances unique, with rival claims to the same property, the court declined to grant or refuse the injunctions conclusively, instead preserving the suit property: prohibiting any dealings or registration of instruments in the land register and prohibiting any development pending hearing and determination, with service on the Chief Land Registrar and the County Secretary. The demolition and vacation orders sought were not granted. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case warranting interlocutory relief

Holding

Both parties laid rival claims to the same property; the court found the circumstances unique and opted to preserve the property rather than conclusively determine competing titles at interlocutory stage

Reasoning

The plaintiff relied on an allotment letter dated 26/11/2008, payment receipts and a search certificate. The 1st defendant relied on a lease supposedly registered on 23/4/2013 by the City Council of Nairobi, which by then had ceased to exist after the 4/3/2013 elections. The 2nd defendant filed no response to clarify ownership. Given these unique circumstances, the court preserved the suit property and fast-tracked the hearing rather than granting or refusing the injunction outright.

p. 4
02

Validity of the foundation of the 1st defendant's title

Holding

The lease underpinning the 1st defendant's title was presented for registration by the City Council of Nairobi after the council had been dissolved, casting doubt on its validity

Reasoning

All local authorities existing prior to the 4/3/2013 general election under the Constitution of Kenya 2010 ceased to exist upon conclusion of those elections. The 1st defendant's lease was allegedly presented for registration on 23/4/2013 by the City Council of Nairobi, a body that no longer existed at that time, undermining the foundation of her title.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • All local authorities existing prior to the general election of 4/3/2013 were dissolved and ceased to exist upon conclusion of those elections, so instruments executed by them after that date are questionable
  • The Giella v Cassman Brown principles govern the grant of interlocutory injunctions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.There shall be no dealings or registration of any instrument in the land register relating to the suit property, formerly Plot No. B55 – Umoja Innercore Sector III and now titled as Title Number Nairobi/Umoja Block 83/1585, pending the hearing and final determination of this suit
  2. 2.There shall be no developments on the suit property pending the hearing and final determination of this suit
  3. 3.A copy of the order shall be served on the Chief Land Registrar and the County Secretary of Nairobi City County
  4. 4.The suit property is preserved and the hearing of the suit fast-tracked
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property (land within Nairobi)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cynthia Wanjiru Gitonga v Christine Njoki & another [2017] KEELC 947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 24/6/2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/947/eng@2017-11-22

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