Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Case No. 101 of 2017 (Formerly ELC Case No. 278 of 2016 – Nyeri)· [2018] KEELC 3832 (KLR)

Julius Kariuki Muiruri v Smart Top Media Limited & another [2018] KEELC 3832 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 April 2018
2,619 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Julius Kariuki Muiruri, sued Smart Top Media Limited (1st Defendant) and Atlanta Village, Thika (2nd Defendant), seeking a declaration that their registrations as proprietors of plot No. Thika Municipality Block 13/427 were null and void, cancellation of those registrations, reversion of the plot to his name, and general damages for fraud. The Plaintiff testified that he purchased the property and was issued a Certificate of Lease on 6th November 2001 under the repealed Registered Land Act, Cap 300. He alleged that the 1st Defendant fraudulently registered itself as proprietor in 2011 and thereafter sold and transferred the property to the 2nd Defendant, who obtained a Certificate of Lease on 1st September 2011. The Defendants were served by substituted service but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence; the suit proceeded by way of formal proof before L. Gacheru J. The Court found that the Plaintiff's registration was first in time and, applying the maxim that where two equities are equal the first in time prevails (as applied in Gitwany Investment Ltd v Commissioner of Lands), held that the subsequent registrations were null and void and liable to cancellation and rectification of the register under Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act. The Court entered judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally in terms of prayers (a) and (b), awarded general damages of Kshs. 500,000/=, and granted costs of the suit plus interest at court rates. Judgment was delivered at Thika on 9th April 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Priority of competing registrations over the same parcel of land

Holding

The Plaintiff's Certificate of Lease issued on 6th November 2001 prevails over the Defendants' later registrations; the subsequent registration is null and void and liable to cancellation and rectification of the register under Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff produced a Certificate of Lease issued on 6th November 2001 under the repealed Registered Land Act, Cap 300. The 1st Defendant's registration was obtained in 2011, and it sold the property to the 2nd Defendant, who was issued a Certificate of Lease on 1st September 2011. Applying the maxim 'when two equities are equal, the first in time prevails', as endorsed in Gitwany Investment Ltd, the earlier registration must prevail. The later registration was obtained by fraud, mistake or omission and is liable to rectification under Section 80(1) of the Land Registration Act.

p. 4
02

Entitlement of a registered proprietor to protection of proprietary rights

Holding

A registered holder of a certificate of lease holds the leasehold interest together with all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto, protected under Section 24(b) and Section 25 of the Land Registration Act and Section 27(b) and Section 28 of the repealed Registered Land Act.

Reasoning

The Court traced the statutory protection of registered proprietors from the repealed Registered Land Act, Cap 300 (Sections 27(b) and 28) to the Land Registration Act, 2012 (Sections 24(b) and 25). The Plaintiff's rights as registered leaseholder, including quiet enjoyment, occupation and disposal, could not be defeated except as provided by the Act. The unchallenged evidence of fraud, and the caution lodged through Jonathan Ngumo Mbogo Advocate, established that the Defendants' registrations encroached upon those protected rights.

p. 3
03

General damages for fraud and consequential suffering

Holding

The Plaintiff suffered loss and damages due to the inconveniences caused by the subsequent fraudulent registrations and is awarded general damages of Kshs. 500,000/= payable by the Defendants.

Reasoning

Having found that the subsequent registration was null and void, the Court accepted the Plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony that he had suffered financially and psychologically as a result of the litigation and the Defendants' actions. In the absence of any defence or contrary evidence, the Court exercised discretion to award general damages of Kshs. 500,000/= against the Defendants jointly and severally.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where two equities are equal, the first in time prevails; where two titles exist over the same parcel, the first registration in time prevails absent fraud
  • Registration of a proprietor as leaseholder vests the leasehold interest and appurtenant rights which cannot be defeated except as provided by law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the registration of the 1st Defendant and thereafter the 2nd Defendant as proprietors of plot No. Thika Municipality Block 13/427 is null and void
  2. 2.Cancellation of the Certificate of Lease issued to the 1st Defendant and later to the 2nd Defendant
  3. 3.Rectification of the register so that the suit property remains registered in the name of the Plaintiff as per his Certificate of Lease issued on 6th November 2001
  4. 4.General damages of Kshs. 500,000/= payable by the Defendants
  5. 5.Costs of the suit plus interest at court rates

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 40(1)
  • Land Registration ActSections 24(a), 24(b), 25(1), 80(1)
  • Registered Land Act, Cap 300 (repealed)Sections 27(b), 28

Cases cited (3)

  • Bornes C. Koskei v Geoffrey K. Korir
    Nakuru HCCC No.7 of 2004
  • Nairobi Permanent Markets Society & 11 Others v Salima Enterprises & 2 Others
    (1997) eKLR
  • Gitwany Investment Ltd & 3 Others v Commissioner of Lands
    HCCC No.1114 of 2002
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court) - not expressly stated in judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (3)

#

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, "Julius Kariuki Muiruri v Smart Top Media Limited & another [2018] KEELC 3832 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Case No. 101 of 2017 (Formerly ELC Case No. 278 of 2016 – Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3832/eng@2018-04-09

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