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 AllowedMeru ELC (not specified in judgment text)· [2018] KEELC 2543 (KLR)

Geoffrey Kirimi Itania v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others [2018] KEELC 2543 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 May 2018
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
2,781 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Meru court ordered land restrictions removed and paid Kshs 1 million damages because the Land Registrar acted without notice, hearing, or investigation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, registered owner of Meru Municipality Block II/641 and 642, sued after restrictions were lodged on the parcels in 2002 on the basis that the plots were mentioned in the Ndung'u report on irregularly and illegally allocated land. The plaintiff bought the plots in February 2002, was transferred the land, obtained lease certificates and development approvals, but could not develop because of the restrictions. The defendants (the directing entity and the Land Registrar, Meru) did not file a defence in time; interlocutory judgment was entered in 2009, though the court nonetheless considered the defence evidence. The Land Registrar testified that the chief land registrar had directed in May 2005 that all parcels in the Ndung'u report be restricted absolutely. The court identified two issues: justification for the restrictions and entitlement to damages. It held there was no justification: the Ndung'u report contained recommendations, not binding resolutions, and the defendants conducted no investigations; the plaintiff was never notified or heard; and the restrictions lacked entry dates and numbers. The court invoked Article 40(3) of the Constitution and section 24 of the Land Registration Act, holding that after 13 years nothing showed the titles were irregularly acquired. General damages were awarded at Kshs.1,000,000, the court finding Kshs.5,000,000 excessive as projected development income was speculative. The court ordered removal of the restrictions, damages, costs against the defendants, and interest computed after 45 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Justification for lodging absolute restrictions on the plaintiff's parcels based on the Ndung'u report

Holding

The restrictions were unjustified; the report was recommendatory, no investigations were conducted, the plaintiff was never notified or heard, and the entries lacked dates and entry numbers

Reasoning

The court held that the Ndung'u report made recommendations requiring implementation within existing legal structures. Section 138 of the Registered Land Act envisaged investigations before restrictions. Defendants adduced no evidence of investigations. The chief land registrar's direction that the restriction be lodged 'ABSOLUTELY' was against the applicable law. The restrictions were lodged arbitrarily, without notice, hearing, entry numbers or dates.

p. 3
02

Entitlement to general damages for inability to develop the land

Holding

General damages awarded but reduced from Kshs.5,000,000 to Kshs.1,000,000

Reasoning

The plaintiff had future, approved development plans that could not yet be quantified, so the claim was properly general rather than special damages. The defendants never mitigated over ten years by investigating or removing the restrictions. However, projected income from the proposed development remained speculative, justifying a reduced award of Kshs.1,000,000.

p. 4
03

Constitutional protection of property rights under Article 40(3)

Holding

After 13 years there was nothing to show the titles were irregularly or illegally acquired; the plaintiff should enjoy his property

Reasoning

The court invoked Article 40(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits deprivation of property except in accordance with Chapter Five or for a public purpose carried out constitutionally. Thirteen years after the restriction directive, no evidence established irregular or illegal acquisition, so the plaintiff's registered title under section 24 of the Land Registration Act was to be respected.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Ndung'u report contained recommendations, not binding resolutions, and had to be implemented within existing legal structures, including inquiries before lodging restrictions
  • Before lodging a restriction the Registrar must direct inquiries, serve notices and hear affected persons; restrictions lodged arbitrarily without notice or hearing, and without entry dates, are unjustified
  • A registered proprietor enjoys absolute ownership of land under section 24 of the Land Registration Act absent proof of irregular or illegal acquisition

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order for the removal of the restrictions placed on Land parcel L.R No. Meru Municipality Block 11/641 & 642
  2. 2.General damages awarded in the sum of Kshs.1,000,000
  3. 3.Defendants condemned to pay costs of the suit
  4. 4.Interest on general damages and costs at court's rates, computed after 45 days

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Registered Land Act (cap 300, repealed)Sections 136-138
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40(3)
  • Land Registration ActSection 24

Cases cited (3)

  • Kent Libiso and Another versus Cirkon Trust Co. Ltd and 2 others
    ELC suit No. 288 of 2011
  • George Njuguna Kinanu versus Njeri Kibui
    ELC 228 of 2011
  • Matoya versus Standard Chartered Bank (K) LTD & others
    (2003) I EA 140
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (removal of restrictions under s.138 Registered Land Act; Article 40(3) Constitution)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (9)

#

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, "Geoffrey Kirimi Itania v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others [2018] KEELC 2543 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Meru ELC (not specified in judgment text). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2543/eng@2018-05-23

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