Peter Xavier Indindi Ojiambo v City Council of Nairobi [2019] KEELC 1171 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court confirmed that a land allottee is entitled to quiet possession, even against the authority that allocated the plot.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved ownership/allotment of the suit plot
The plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he is the lawful allottee, his evidence being uncontroverted as the defendant called no evidence
The defendant filed a defence denying the allegations but tendered no evidence and called no witnesses. The plaintiff adopted his witness statement and produced a letter of allotment dated 15th July 1993, a beacon certificate, receipts, a statement of account and correspondence. The court found the plaintiff's case not controverted and that the documentary exhibits confirmed he is the lawful allottee of the suit plot.
Whether the defendant sanctioned trespass on the suit property
The court found the defendant failed to remove trespassers and failed to enforce its own demolition memo dated 4th February 1997
A letter from the defendant confirmed there was encroachment onto the suit property. The kiosk fronting the plot was licensed by the defendant and the church structure behind it was allowed by the defendant. Despite issuing a demolition memo dated 4th February 1997, the defendant failed to enforce it and failed to remove the trespassers, entitling the plaintiff to quiet possession.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with a declaration of lawful allotment and a permanent injunction against the defendant
Having found the plaintiff to be the lawful allottee and that the defendant failed to remove encroachers it had licensed or tolerated, the court held the plaintiff entitled to the declaration and injunction sought. The court relied on Reuben Warui Mwonge vs Josphat Aradi & 3 Others [2018] eKLR where defendants were ordered to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the beneficial owner. Costs and interest were also awarded.
Legal principles established
#- An allottee who is not given possession due to encroachment sanctioned or tolerated by the allotting authority is entitled to quiet possession, occupation and use of the property free of interference
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful allottee of plot number H/15 (workshop) Kayole Commercial Zones E, F, D & H
- 2.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and/or employees from interfering with the plaintiff's plot number H/15 (workshop) Kayole Commercial Zones E, F, D and H
- 3.The plaintiff shall have costs of the suit and interest
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute relating to allocation and possession of land (plot H/15 Kayole Commercial Zone)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Xavier Indindi Ojiambo v City Council of Nairobi [2019] KEELC 1171 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Civil Case No. 738 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1171/eng@2019-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.