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 AllowedE.L.C. Case No. 412 of 2010· [2018] KEELC 1960 (KLR)

Andrew Gatu Gichia v Mandugu Holdings Co Limited & 5 others [2018] KEELC 1960 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 August 2018
KBK. BOR
1,107 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

#

The High Court confirmed that a wrongly numbered land title doesn't legally exist in Kenya, awarding the owner KShs 1 million for trespass.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, registered proprietor of Nairobi Block 107/1121 with a certificate of lease issued on 5/10/2006, sued claiming that the 4th Defendant unlawfully trespassed onto his Umoja land in 2010 and fenced it, and that the 5th Defendant had advanced loans secured by charges over the property. The central issue was whether Nairobi Block 107/1121 and Nairobi Block 107/1/1121 - the parcel the 4th Defendant claimed to own and charged to the 5th Defendant - were the same parcel. Evidence from a land surveyor with the Director of Surveys and the Land Registrar established that Nairobi Block 107/1/1121 did not exist in the survey or registry records, and that only Nairobi Block 107/1121 existed, registered in the 4th Defendant's name following double allocation. The Director of Surveys confirmed the physical beacons of Block 107/1121 were stable per F/R No. 251/87 and the amended RIM for Nairobi Block 107 (Umoja 2) showed parcel 1121 only. Applying Section 18 of the (repealed) Registered Land Act, the court held that parcel numbers must be consecutive, so the designation 1/1121 did not comply with the Act. The court found the Plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities, granted prayers (a), (aa) and (bb) of the Re-amended Plaint dated 21/10/2015, awarded general damages for trespass of Kshs. 1 million, and ordered the 4th Defendant to bear the costs of the suit. Judgment was delivered by K. Bor, Judge, on 30 August 2018; none of the Defendants appeared at the hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Nairobi Block 107/1121 and Nairobi Block 107/1/1121 are the same parcel of land

Holding

They are the same parcel - a case of double allocation - and only Nairobi Block 107/1121 exists, belonging to the Plaintiff

Reasoning

The surveyor and Land Registrar confirmed that Nairobi Block 107/1/1121 does not exist in survey or lands records. The RIM shows parcel 1121 only. Under Section 18 of the Registered Land Act, parcels are numbered consecutively, so the designation 1/1121 is non-compliant. The Director of Surveys confirmed Block 107/1121 was surveyed and its beacons stable, while 107/1/1121 did not exist in the records.

p. 2
02

Whether the 4th Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiff's land

Holding

Yes - the Plaintiff proved his case on a balance of probabilities and was awarded general damages of Kshs. 1 million

Reasoning

Since the 4th Defendant's claimed parcel number does not exist and the land belongs to the Plaintiff, the 4th Defendant's erection of a fence and charging of the property were trespasses on the Plaintiff's land, proving the claim on a balance of probabilities.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Parcel numbering under Section 18 of the Registered Land Act must be consecutive; a parcel number such as 1/1121 does not comply with the Act and a purported parcel so numbered does not exist.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Grants prayers (a), (aa) and (bb) of the Re-amended Plaint dated 21/10/2015
  2. 2.Awards general damages for trespass of Kshs. 1 million to the Plaintiff
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to be borne by the 4th Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Registered Land Act (repealed)Section 18
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)Section 18(4)
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (original suit for trespass and declaration over registered land)

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Andrew Gatu Gichia v Mandugu Holdings Co Limited & 5 others [2018] KEELC 1960 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). E.L.C. Case No. 412 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1960/eng@2018-08-30

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