Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case No 262 of 2017 (Formerly Nakuru 320 of 2016)· [2019] KEELC 4485 (KLR)

John Angelo Kibet & another v Board of Governors of Magomano Primary School (Josephat Kibe, Paul Kangethe, Samwel Kamau Karanja) & another [2019] KEELC 4485 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 February 2019
5,249 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered a school board to pay nearly KES 1 million, vacate land and restore boundary marks it had moved on registered private property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu (M.C. Oundo J) determined a trespass and boundary dispute brought by two registered proprietors against the Board of Governors of Magomano Primary School and its PTA Chairman. The Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of parcels Nyandarua/Ndemi/862 and 5075-5080, alleged that in 2015 the school, in the company of a surveyor and a mob, excised approximately 11-12 acres from their parcels, placed beacons, altered fixed boundaries, cut trees valued at Kshs 763,000/= and erected its own fence. The Land Registrar had found the boundaries should follow the Registry Index Map, a finding the National Land Commission adopted and the Defendants never appealed. The Defendants, though having participated in interlocutory stages and filed a defence, did not appear at the hearing, which proceeded ex parte under Order 12 rule 2. Framing three issues - proprietorship, trespass and general damages - the court held that the Plaintiffs' titles were indefeasible under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act and unimpeached, that the surveyor's and Registrar's reports established that ground boundaries did not correspond with the RIM, and that the Defendants' entry therefore constituted continuing trespass actionable per se. The court awarded each Plaintiff Kshs 100,000/= general damages, the 1st Plaintiff Kshs 763,000/= for cut trees, ordered eviction and reinstatement of the official boundary at the Defendants' cost within 30 days, and awarded costs to the Plaintiffs at a lower scale given the undefended suit. Judgment was dated and delivered at Nyahururu on 26th February 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs proved ownership of the suit parcels

Holding

The Plaintiffs proved they were the duly registered proprietors of their respective suit properties and are entitled to all rights appurtenant thereto; their titles were not impeached

Reasoning

The 1st Plaintiff produced allotment letters, letters of offer, charges, receipts, a certificate of outright purchase and a certified title showing registration of parcel 862 in 1992; the 2nd Plaintiff produced six original titles. Under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act titles are prima facie indefeasible, and the Defendants adduced no evidence of fraud, illegality or corruption to impeach them.

p. 5
02

Whether the Defendants trespassed on the Plaintiffs' land

Holding

The Defendants' interference with fixed boundaries and entry onto the Plaintiffs' parcels constituted trespass, the Land Registrar's unappealed findings confirming the boundaries per the RIM

Reasoning

The Land Registrar and surveyor visited the land twice, finding the ground boundaries did not correspond with the RIM; a private surveyor's report corroborated this. The Registrar's recommendation that the plots maintain their RIM boundaries was never appealed, and the National Land Commission adopted it. With no evidence of lawful entry, the Defendants' actions amounted to trespass, which was continuing.

p. 6
03

Whether the Defendants are liable for general damages

Holding

Liability for general damages was established since trespass is actionable per se; damages were quantified at Kshs 100,000/= per Plaintiff plus Kshs 763,000/= for cut trees

Reasoning

Relying on Park Towers Ltd and Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa, the court held trespass actionable per se without proof of damage. The continuing trespass warranted general damages, and the forest officer's report valuing the cut trees at Kshs 763,000/=, supported by photographs, justified the special award to the 1st Plaintiff.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is party, or where the title was acquired illegally, un-procedurally or through a corrupt scheme
  • Where a registered proprietor's root of title is under challenge, the proprietor must prove the legality of how the title was acquired, beyond merely producing the title instrument
  • Trespass to land is actionable per se and no proof of damage is necessary for the court to award general damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Award of Kshs 100,000/= to each of the Plaintiffs as compensation for the infringement of their right to use and enjoy their respective suit properties occasioned by the 1st Defendant's trespass
  2. 2.Award of Ksh 763,000/- to the 1st Plaintiff as compensation for the cut down trees
  3. 3.Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiffs as against the Defendants as pleaded in the plaint; eviction of the Defendants and reinstatement of the official boundary and boundary marks between LR Nyandarua/Ndemi/1366 and LR Nyandarua/Ndemi/862, 5075, 5076, 5077, 5078, 5079 and 5080 at the Defendant's own cost within 30 days upon delivery of the judgment
  4. 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs at a lower scale since the suit was undefended

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 26(1)
  • Land Registration ActSections 18 and 19
  • Land Registration ActSection 20
  • Land Registration ActSections 25 and 26
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)
  • The Land Act, 2012
  • Trespass Act Cap 403
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12, rule 2

Cases cited (3)

  • Munyu Maina vs. Hiram Gathiha Maina
    [2013] eKLR
  • Park Towers Ltd v. John Mithamo Njika & 7 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa v. KP& LC Limited & Another
    (2013) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction following transfer of the suit from the High Court at Nakuru upon establishment of the Nyahururu Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Angelo Kibet & another v Board of Governors of Magomano Primary School (Josephat Kibe, Paul Kangethe, Samwel Kamau Karanja) & another [2019] KEELC 4485 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Case No 262 of 2017 (Formerly Nakuru 320 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4485/eng@2019-02-26

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