Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedOriginating Summons dated 31st October 2001 (filed at High Court Mombasa; transferred to Malindi ELC on 30th September 2014)· [2019] KEELC 1749 (KLR)

Mbetsa Sadi Munga & 89 others v Peter Kahi & 5 others [2019] KEELC 1749 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 September 2019
4,693 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Malindi court ruled that unclaimed coastal land is Government land, dismissing 90 community members' claims to salt-mining plots.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This suit, filed as an Originating Summons at the High Court in Mombasa in October 2001 and transferred to the Malindi Environment and Land Court in 2014, was brought by some 90 Plaintiffs from the WaGiriama, WaSanya, WaChonyi and WaKauma communities against the Commissioner of Lands and two salt manufacturing companies. They sought 17 declarations, principally that three grants (LR Nos. 21918, 21983 and 22138) issued to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants should be expunged from the Coast Registry of Titles, on grounds that the land was their ancestral property under customary law since 1895, or alternatively Trust Land wrongly transferred by the County Councils. The Defendants maintained they were duly registered proprietors, that the land was Government land allocated for salt mining, and that squatters had been compensated. The court examined the vesting of the ten-mile Coastal Strip and found that, following the agreements between Kenya and the Sultan of Zanzibar and Sections 204 and 205 of the Kenya Independence Order in Council 1963, the strip became Government land at independence. It further found no evidence of occupation before the 1970s, no claims lodged with the Recorder of Titles, and no proof that the titles were unlawfully acquired. The environmental claims failed for want of expert evidence and the non-joinder of NEMA. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs, each party bearing their own costs, given the constitutional nature of the issues.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit premises were Government Land or Trust Land

Holding

The premises are Government Land, not Trust Land; the Coastal Strip was ceded to Kenya at independence

Reasoning

The court traced the vesting of the ten-mile Coastal Strip through Sections 204 and 205 of the Kenya Independence Order in Council 1963 and the definition of Government Land under the Government Lands Act. It relied on the earlier decision in Rodgers Mwamboje and the FIDA case confirming that unclaimed coastal land under the Land Titles Act is deemed Government land. The Trust Land Act did not apply to the strip.

p. 5
02

Whether the Plaintiffs had customary law rights defeating the registered titles

Holding

No such rights were established; the Plaintiffs' own statutory declarations showed settlement only in the 1970s

Reasoning

The court found no evidence of occupation before the 1970s, contradicting the pleaded claim of possession since 1895. No claim was ever presented to the Recorder of Titles under Section 15 of the Land Titles Act. The court held the Plaintiffs could not choose their own tenure system contrary to legislation and Government policy, and that registered title under Section 75 of the repealed Constitution was not shown to have been unlawfully acquired.

p. 6
03

Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants' activities caused environmental degradation

Holding

The claim failed for want of evidence; assertions were mere speculation

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs provided no expert report to substantiate their environmental claims under EMCA, and although the Court repeatedly invited them to join NEMA to the proceedings, they did not. In the absence of evidence, the Court could not act on speculation and prejudice. Consequently all relief founded on environmental degradation and inter-generational equity failed.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Land within the ten-mile Coastal Strip that was ceded to Kenya at independence became Government Land under Sections 204 and 205 of the Kenya Independence Order in Council 1963 and the Government Lands Act
  • Coastal land not privately claimed under the Land Titles Act is Government land as opposed to Trust Land

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Government Lands ActSection 2
  • Kenya Independence Order in Council 1963Sections 204 and 205, Schedule 2
  • Constitution of Kenya (repealed)Sections 75, 84, 114(1)(c), 118(1), 118(4)(b), 119
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 40
  • Trust Land Actnull
  • Registration of Titles ActCap 281
  • Land Titles Act (repealed)Sections 15 and 17
  • Environment Management and Coordination ActNo. 8 of 1999

Cases cited (2)

  • Rodgers Mwamboje –vs- Douglas Mwambonje (2014) eKLR
    (2014) eKLR
  • Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA Kenya) & 4 Others –vs- Attorney General & 2 Others (2016) eKLR
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under Sections 75 and 84 of the (repealed) Constitution, as invoked in the Originating Summons

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mbetsa Sadi Munga & 89 others v Peter Kahi & 5 others [2019] KEELC 1749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Originating Summons dated 31st October 2001 (filed at High Court Mombasa; transferred to Malindi ELC on 30th September 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1749/eng@2019-09-20

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