Jacob Githinji Kamau v Patrick Rerimoi & another [2019] KEELC 2709 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court gave the land to the buyer who did her homework and punished the rival claimant who misled it, awarding her Kshs. 3 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of abatement of suit against the deceased 1st defendant
The plaintiff could not sustain prayers for cancellation of the 1st defendant's title or his eviction, as the suit against the title-holder abated on death and was never revived; the plaintiff's suit was dismissed
Rerimoi died in 2004; the suit against him abated one year later with no substitution or revival order. The whole of the plaintiff's case was premised on cancelling Rerimoi's title. With that prayer unsustainable, the substratum of the case collapsed, including the eviction prayer against the 2nd defendant.
Capacity of Dominic Tanui to sell Tarus Kamagut's shares/land
Tanui, neither owner nor proved agent nor legal representative of Kamagut, could not lawfully sell the shares or land, whether Kamagut was alive or dead
No power of attorney or grant of letters of administration with authority to sell was produced. If Kamagut was alive, only he could sell; if dead, sale by Tanui without a grant would amount to intermeddling with a deceased person's estate. The plaintiff thus failed to show purchase from the rightful proprietor.
Authenticity of the company register and rightful owner of Plot No. 139
Greater weight was given to DW-2's evidence as a proven director and chairman of Kalenjin Enterprises; the company cleared Rerimoi and the 2nd defendant for Plot No. 139, and clearing Kania was an error
PW-2 produced no proof of his directorship or secretaryship, while DW-2 proved his position with a Registrar of Companies letter. The company's failure to enter the 2nd defendant's name in the register against Plot No. 139 was an oversight; the register's blank entry led to Kania's name being erroneously inserted.
Validity of the sale between Rerimoi and the 2nd defendant
The sale was lawful; the 2nd defendant conducted due diligence including inquiries at the company offices, obtained Land Control Board consent, and received executed transfer instruments
At the time of sale Rerimoi was registered proprietor and in possession. The 2nd defendant did a search, confirmed ownership at the company offices, and proceeded properly. The court found no fault in the transaction and was prepared to allow its completion by transferring title to her.
Damages for the unlawful eviction
General damages of Kshs. 1,000,000/= for trespass and exemplary damages of Kshs. 2,000,000/= awarded; special damages not proved
Kania misled the court into granting an eviction order when he had none against the 2nd defendant, filed a false affidavit of service on a dead man, and hired auctioneers to demolish her homestead. His lack of good faith defeated any reliance on the order; the deceit warranted exemplary damages.
Legal principles established
#- A suit that abates against a deceased defendant leaves the plaintiff unable to sustain prayers directed at that defendant unless the suit is revived against the estate
- A person who obtains a court order through deceit cannot rely on that order as a defence to trespass
- Obtaining court orders through deceit attracts exemplary damages
- Special damages must be both specifically pleaded and specifically proved
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that it is the 2nd defendant who ought to be registered as proprietor of Dundori/Muguathi Block 2/139
- 2.Direction to the Land Registrar to cancel the title of the plaintiff and register the 2nd defendant as proprietor of Dundori/Muguathi Block 2/139 and issue her a title deed
- 3.Judgment for the 2nd defendant against the estate of Kamau Kania for Kshs. 1,000,000/= general damages for trespass and Kshs. 2,000,000/= exemplary damages, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment
- 4.Permanent injunction restraining the estate of Kamau Kania and/or their servants/agents from entering, being upon or interfering with possession of Dundori/Muguathi Block 2/139
- 5.Costs of the suit awarded to the 2nd defendant, to be borne by the estate of Kamau Kania
- 6.Dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with costs to the 2nd defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title to land (Environment and Land Court Act); specific provision not stated in the 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.
- Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited v Koi & 3 others (Civil Appeal E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4295 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4295 (KLR)4 Jun 2025followed
- Titus Gethi Ndwiga v James Njoroge Githu & another [2022] KEELC 1046 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 1046 (KLR)24 Feb 2022applied
- Lawrence Muriithi M’thika & 3 others v Munyi Murwathika & another [2021] KEELC 44 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 44 (KLR)30 Nov 2021followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jacob Githinji Kamau v Patrick Rerimoi & another [2019] KEELC 2709 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Nakuru ELC Case (originally filed 10 January 1997 against Patrick Rerimoi Kipkemei; number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2709/eng@2019-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.