Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case No. 491 of 2011· [2019] KEELC 4604 (KLR)

Margaret Muthoni Murage & another v Councilor Peter Kangara & another [2019] KEELC 4604 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 February 2019
EOE. O. Obaga
1,390 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi land claim failed because the plaintiffs couldn't prove their plots were allocated to them or that the defendant demolished their buildings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, alleging allotment of plot Nos. 307 and 405 at Umoja II Zone 8, Nairobi on 17 July 2003, sued the first defendant and Nairobi City County after their incomplete buildings were demolished on 27 August 2011. They sought a permanent injunction against the first defendant, demolition of his building, refunds from the second defendant, and compensation for loss of houses and mesne profits. The first defendant testified he purchased plots 203 and 204 from previous owners and constructed sixteen rooms; his evidence was that the second defendant demolished illegal structures on a road reserve along Manyanja Road, not the plaintiffs' plots. The court framed six issues, including the relative location of the plots, the validity of the plaintiffs' allotment, and liability for the demolition. It found that a county surveyor confirmed plots 203 and 204 and plots 307 and 405 are on different locations, and that the town clerk who allegedly signed the plaintiffs' allotment letters denounced them as forgeries, which the plaintiffs never rebutted. The second plaintiff admitted he did not know who demolished his building and conceded the second defendant was wrongly sued. The court held neither defendant liable, found no basis for compensation, refunds, or demolition of the first defendant's buildings, and dismissed the suit with costs to the defendants on 14 February 2019 (E. O. Obaga, J).

Key legal issues

#
01

Location of the plots on the ground

Holding

Plots 203 and 204 are not the same position as plots 307 and 405; a county surveyor confirmed different locations from the map and beacon certificate

Reasoning

A surveyor from Nairobi City County prepared a report and Patrick K Matheka confirmed on the ground, upon being availed a beacon certificate by the first defendant, that plots 203 and 204 are next to Manyanja Road and distinct from plots 307 and 405. The plaintiffs did not avail their beacon certificates.

p. 2
02

Validity of the plaintiffs' allotment

Holding

The plaintiffs were never allocated plots 307 and 405; the alleged signatory, town clerk John Mbugua, denounced the letters of allotment as forgeries

Reasoning

The plaintiffs claimed allocation by town clerk John Mbugua on 17 July 2003. John Mbugua swore an affidavit denouncing the allotment letters as forgeries, and the plaintiffs adduced no evidence to contradict him. Their claim of allocation therefore failed.

p. 2
03

Liability for the demolition

Holding

Neither defendant was liable; the second plaintiff did not know who demolished his building and the demolition targeted illegal structures on a road reserve

Reasoning

The second plaintiff testified he did not know who demolished his building and conceded suing the 2nd defendant was a mistake. Documentary and photographic evidence showed the 2nd defendant demolished illegal structures on a road reserve along Manyanja Road. No complicity of the 1st defendant was established.

p. 2
04

Costs

Holding

Costs awarded to the defendants as the plaintiffs failed to prove their case

Reasoning

Having found the plaintiffs failed to prove allocation, identity of plots, or liability for demolition, the court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the defendants as the successful parties.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging allocation of land must prove the allocation, particularly where the alleged signatory of the allotment letters denounces them as forgeries and no contradicting evidence is adduced

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes (suit concerning plots in Nairobi)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Margaret Muthoni Murage & another v Councilor Peter Kangara & another [2019] KEELC 4604 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Case No. 491 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4604/eng@2019-02-14

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