Rosemary Wanjiru Njiraini v Officer In Charge of Station, Molo Police Station & another [2017] KEELC 1090 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment & Land Court upheld a landowner's title over land claimed by police, awarding damages because the State produced no documents proving the land was public.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit land forms part of Molo Police Station land
No - the respondents produced no PDP, survey map, allotment letter or title to prove the reservation
The respondents relied on the mere oral statement that the police station was gazetted in 1951 measuring 8 hectares. No Part Development Plan, legible map, allotment letter or document of title in favour of the police was tendered. The court held that in such matters documents speak and oral evidence must be backed by documentation. The respondents therefore failed to discharge their burden.
Whether the petitioner's title is valid and protected
Yes - the certificate of title is prima facie proof of ownership and the burden lay on the respondents to displace it
Under Section 28 of the (repealed) Registered Land Act, Section 23 of the (repealed) Registration of Titles Act and now Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, 2012, a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation or illegal/unprocedural acquisition. The petitioner traced her root from the original allottees through a grant, transfer and conversion, and no evidence showed unlawful acquisition under Article 40(6).
Whether the respondents violated the petitioner's constitutional right to property
Yes - the respondents arbitrarily deprived her of the use and enjoyment of her land
The petitioner was stopped from developing, arrested without charge, and her title was revoked through a Gazette Notice (later quashed by certiorari). With no proof that the land was public utility land, the interference was arbitrary. Article 40 protection applied and the court found the respondents' conduct infringed the right to property.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to damages
Yes - general damages of Kshs. 500,000/= awarded despite no proof of specific pecuniary loss
It was not denied that the respondents prevented the petitioner from using her land. She was harassed and arrested without charges merely for exercising proprietary rights. Though she proved no specific pecuniary loss, the court, in its discretion, awarded general damages recognising the violation of her property rights.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership and the burden of proving that the title is not good lies on the party challenging it
- A court cannot cancel a title on a mere unsupported statement that the land comprised therein is public land
- If the State needs privately titled land for a public purpose, it must follow compulsory acquisition procedures
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the petitioner is the lawful proprietor of the leasehold interest comprised in the land Molo Township Block 11/157
- 2.Order of permanent injunction restraining the respondents and/or their servants/agents from interfering with the petitioner's use and quiet possession of the land parcel Molo Township Block 11/157
- 3.Declaration that the respondents violated the petitioner's constitutional right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
- 4.Award of general damages of Kshs. 500,000/= to the petitioner
- 5.Costs of the petition awarded to the petitioner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitutional petition for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
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.
- Mbaabu (The duly appointed Attorney of Githinji Kithinji Mwirichia) v Abdulrahman & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 319 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7511 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7511 (KLR)30 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rosemary Wanjiru Njiraini v Officer In Charge of Station, Molo Police Station & another [2017] KEELC 1090 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Constitutional Petition filed 16 July 2012 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1090/eng@2017-10-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.