Lilian Wambui Kuria v Ol Kejuado County Council [2019] KEELC 538 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court confirmed a landowner's plot was not a road reserve and permanently barred the county council from interfering with or demolishing her building.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff was the bona fide owner of plot 638(R)
The Plaintiff proved ownership on the evidence: the Defendant effected the transfer, received rates, and approved her building plans.
The Plaintiff produced a Transfer Form from Wilson Kinyanjui, receipts for rates paid to the Defendant, a 1982 letter from the Defendant confirming ownership, and approved development plans. The Defendant, though disputing ownership, never explained why it issued the transfer, collected rates and approved plans, and never cancelled the transfer. The court found the ownership evidence overwhelming.
Whether the plot is on a road reserve
The plot is not on a road reserve.
The Plaintiff produced a map as an exhibit showing the plot was not on a road reserve; the Defendant did not attend the hearing or challenge that evidence. Since the Defendant had approved her building plans, the marking of the premises with an X for demolition was unfounded.
Whether a permanent injunction should issue
Yes; the Defendant, its servants, agents and employees are permanently restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and occupation.
Having found the Plaintiff the legal owner in quiet possession with the Defendant's knowledge and acquiescence, and associating with the decision in Ahmed Ibrahim Suleiman, the court held she is entitled to the protection of the law. The Defendant never attempted to cancel the transfer, which therefore remains valid.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor is entitled to the protection of the law under section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act.
- A council cannot allocate the same property against an uncancelled allotment/transfer without following the laid down procedure.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff's plot number 638 (R) is not on a road reserve and an attempt by the Defendant to mark her building for demolition is illegal and unlawful.
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents and employees from interfering with the Plaintiff's right of peaceful enjoyment of plot number 638(R) Ongata Rongai.
- 3.Costs of the suit to be borne by the Defendant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court, Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (implied; land and environment dispute)
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.
- Githongo v County Government of Meru (Environment & Land Petition 18 of 2014) [2022] KEELC 3872 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 3872 (KLR)27 Jul 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lilian Wambui Kuria v Ol Kejuado County Council [2019] KEELC 538 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Case No. 837 of 2017 (Formerly Nairobi HCCC No. 203 of 2007 & Machakos ELC No. 194 of 2008). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/538/eng@2019-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.