Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Petition Case No. 30 of 2017· [2019] KEELC 4000 (KLR)

Sisters of Notre Dame De Namur Registered Trustees v National Land Commission & 2 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission(Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 4000 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 April 2019
3,835 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A religious trust's fresh constitutional challenge to a revoked land title failed because the same ownership dispute had already been decided in an earlier Kenyan court case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, Sisters of Notre Dame De Namur Registered Trustees, bought Kisumu Municipality/Block 12/124 (House No. KISU/HOU/HG/80) in 2009 for Kshs. 6,000,000 and obtained a certificate of lease. On 17th July 2017 the National Land Commission published Gazette Notice No. 6862 revoking its title, and the Petitioner filed this constitutional petition seeking prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, declarations of indefeasible ownership and damages, alleging violation of Articles 40 and 47. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission was enjoined as Interested Party and opposed the petition, arguing that the validity of the Petitioner's title had already been decided against it in Petition No. 30 of 2012, dismissed on 29th May 2014, and that the present petition was an abuse of process. The respondents filed no replying papers. Framing four issues, the court held the petition res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act: ownership, possession and title were the central issue in Petition No. 30 of 2012, in which the court found the seller's lease a forgery, the transaction fraudulent, and the property government land never available for alienation. The court also held the Petitioner failed to prove reinstatement of any stay of that judgment, applying Section 107 of the Evidence Act. Finding no fault with the gazettement, the court held no constitutional rights were infringed. The petition was dismissed with costs to the Interested Party.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

The petition is res judicata because ownership, possession and validity of title to the suit property were fully determined in Petition No. 30 of 2012 between the same Petitioner, the Attorney General and the Interested Party

Reasoning

The court compared the pleadings in both petitions and found the same suit property (Kisumu Municipality/Block 12/124 and House No. KISU/HOU/HG/80) and the same central issue of ownership had been litigated and decided on 29th May 2014. Although the National Land Commission and Chief Land Registrar were not parties to the earlier petition, the question of ownership was decided against the Petitioner, and Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars re-litigation of the same issue.

p. 5
02

Validity of the Petitioner's title

Holding

No good title ever passed to the Petitioner because the seller's lease certificate was a forgery and the suit property was government land reserved for hospital staff residence

Reasoning

The court adopted the findings in Petition No. 30 of 2012, in which Kaniaru J found that Justin Kimutai Sirma's lease was a forgery, that the transaction was fraudulent (with a Land Registrar benefitting from the purchase money), and that the property was government land never available for alienation. Those findings bind the Petitioner until changed by a higher court.

p. 5
03

Alleged violation of constitutional rights

Holding

No violation of Articles 40 or 47 was established because the Petitioner never had protectable property rights in the suit property

Reasoning

Since the Petitioner acquired no good title, its constitutional claim of arbitrary deprivation under Article 40 and violation of fair administrative action under Article 47 fails. The gazettement by the National Land Commission merely regularised ownership in conformity with the existing judgment and could not constitute a wrong against the Petitioner.

p. 5
04

Status of the stay of the 29th May 2014 judgment

Holding

There is no order in force staying execution of the earlier judgment; the ex parte interim stay lapsed and reinstatement was not proved

Reasoning

Although the Petitioner deponed that interim stay orders had been extended, no extracted order or ruling was produced. Applying Section 107 of the Evidence Act, the court held the Petitioner failed to discharge its evidential burden, so the 2014 judgment stands unstayed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A claim over title, ownership and possession of land already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction is barred by res judicata and cannot be re-litigated in the form of a fresh constitutional petition
  • Courts must guard against litigants introducing new causes of action to seek the same remedy already resolved by a competent court
  • A party alleging reinstatement or extension of stay orders bears the burden of proving it; absent proof, the stay is taken to have lapsed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the petition are awarded to the Interested Party who participated in its hearing

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 19, 22, 23, 40(2), 40(3)(b), 47(1) and (2), 50, 64
  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of KenyaSection 7
  • Evidence Act, Chapter 80, Laws of KenyaSection 107

Cases cited (5)

  • E. T. vs Attorney General and Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • R. vs Commissioner of Lands & Another Exparte Lima Ltd
    Eldoret H.C. J.R. No. 10 of 2008
  • R. V. Senior Registrar of Titles, Mombasa & 2 Others Exparte Comen Ltd
    Mombasa H.C. Misc. Civil App. No. 70 of 2010
  • R. vs District Land Registrar Mombasa & 5 Others exparte Super Nova Properties Ltd
    Mombasa Judicial Review App. No. 105 of 2010
  • Petition No. 30 of 2012 (Sisters of Notre Dame De Namur Registered Trustees v Hon. Attorney General & Others)
    (Previous Nairobi H.C. Petition No. 150 of 2012)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 22, 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (enforcement of Bill of Rights), in the matter of alleged contravention of Articles 19, 22, 23, 40, 47, 50 and 64

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (4)

#

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, "Sisters of Notre Dame De Namur Registered Trustees v National Land Commission & 2 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission(Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 4000 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Petition Case No. 30 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4000/eng@2019-04-03

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