Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedE.L.C. Case No. 819 of 2015· [2018] KEELC 302 (KLR)

Charles M. Ringera v Mshamba Housing Cooperative Society & another [2018] KEELC 302 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 December 2018
KBK. BOR
934 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 dismissed a member's compensation claim against a housing cooperative because he failed to prove his plot was wrongly taken from him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, a member of the 1st Defendant cooperative, entered a 2004 sale agreement for plot number 090 on L.R. No. 9363/102 at Ruai, Nairobi County, paid Kshs. 47,000/=, and received a letter of allotment in 2006, claiming possession but no title. He sought an order compelling the 1st Defendant to compensate him for the value of the plot, plus general damages and costs. The 1st Defendant denied the claim, explaining that after subdivision of L.R. No. 9363/102, some plots fell within the riparian reserve and public utility requirements, reducing the plots available to members. At a meeting attended by members including the Plaintiff, the Society resolved to buy alternative land to compensate affected members, and the Plaintiff was allocated plot number 49 on L.R. No. 1/43 Donyo Sabuk through ballot number 218, which he signed for. The 2nd Defendant also denied the claim. The Plaintiff produced a valuation report valuing the Ruai plot at Kshs. 1.6 million against Kshs. 200,000/= for the Donyo Sabuk plot, but declined to take up the Donyo Sabuk plot. The court found the Plaintiff did not lead evidence that plot 090 was allocated to someone else and did not challenge the averment that it was taken up by public utility, noting other members' plots were similarly affected. The Plaintiff failed to prove any claim against the 2nd Defendant. The court held the Plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the suit with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the value of plot number 090 on L.R. No. 9363/102

Holding

The claim failed because the Plaintiff did not prove the plot was taken from him and given to another person or that it was not taken up by public utility

Reasoning

The court found that the Plaintiff's plot became unavailable after resurvey, along with other plots taken up by roads, riparian reserves or public utilities. The Plaintiff participated in the balloting in which members affected were reallocated land at Donyo Sabuk and signed for the allocation. He led no evidence that plot 090 was allocated to someone else and did not challenge the averment that it fell within public utility. Having not proved his case on a balance of probabilities, the suit was dismissed.

p. 2
02

Whether the Plaintiff had any claim against the 2nd Defendant

Holding

No claim was proved against the Nairobi City County

Reasoning

The 2nd Defendant had imposed conditions for the subdivision of the 1st Defendant's land. The Plaintiff led no evidence establishing any cause of action against the County, and the court found he failed to prove any claim against it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A plaintiff bears the burden of proving his case on a balance of probabilities
  • A party who participated in a members' resolution to reallocate plots affected by resurvey cannot claim compensation without showing his plot was allocated to another or challenging the public utility take-up

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles M. Ringera v Mshamba Housing Cooperative Society & another [2018] KEELC 302 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). E.L.C. Case No. 819 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/302/eng@2018-12-06

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