James Murimi Githinji & 2 others v Embakasi Ranching Co.Ltd & 2 others [2020] KEELC 137 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court cancelled rival land registrations and awarded damages after the defendants skipped the hearing, proving that ignoring a lawsuit can cost you your land title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Effect of defendants' failure to adduce evidence despite filing a defence
The defence filed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants who did not testify carried no weight; the uncontroverted Plaintiffs' evidence was accepted
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a defence but neither they nor the 1st Defendant attended the hearing, which proceeded ex parte. Relying on John Wainaina Kagwe v Hussein Dairy Ltd as quoted in Gideon Mose Onchwati v Kenya Oil Company Ltd, the court held that pleadings without evidential support amount to nothing and submissions on fact cannot cure that deficiency. The Plaintiffs' documentary and oral evidence, corroborated by PW3 and PW4, therefore stood unchallenged.
Whether the Plaintiffs owned the suit plots and were entitled to cancellation of the Defendants' registrations
The court found the plots originally belonged to the 3rd Plaintiff, one having been sold to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs, and ordered cancellation of the registrations in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
The Plaintiffs traced their root of title through purchase agreements and transfers recorded at the 1st Defendant's offices, corroborated by the introducer (PW3) and the 3rd Plaintiff's mother (PW4). The court found the plots had been registered in favour of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants before injunctive orders issued, and that the true owners were the Plaintiffs, justifying cancellation of the registrations and declaratory relief.
Damages for trespass
Special damages refused for want of strict proof; general damages of Kshs. 100,000/= to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and Kshs. 50,000/= to the 3rd Plaintiff awarded; mesne profits refused
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved, which was not done. However, trespass was proved through the deceased director's admission to sending hired goons who destroyed the fence and mabati structures, so general damages were assessed at Kshs. 100,000/= for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and Kshs. 50,000/= for the 3rd Plaintiff, with interest at court rates. Mesne profits failed because the Plaintiffs remained in possession.
Legal principles established
#- Pleadings unsupported by evidence amount to nothing; submissions on issues of fact cannot suffice
- Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved
- General damages are available where trespass is proved
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, relatives, workmen and or agents from entering on, alienating or in any way interfering with the Plaintiffs' use and quiet enjoyment of plot No. P 9184 (now parcel 8661) and plot V2676 now parcel 8636
- 2.A declaration that plot No. P 9184 now parcel 8661 and plot No. V2679 now parcel 8636 belongs to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and the 3rd Plaintiff respectively
- 3.An order directing the Chief Land Registrar to cancel LR No. Nairobi/Block 136/8636 in the name of Stephen Karuu Maina and LR No. Nairobi/Block 136/8661 in the name of John Kiongera Ngugi and have the same registered in the names of the 3rd Plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs respectively
- 4.General damages of Kshs. 100,000/= in favour of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs
- 5.General damages of Kshs. 50,000/= in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff
- 6.Interest on the general damages at court rates from the date of judgment
- 7.Costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly quoted in the judgment); the suit concerned ownership, registration and trespass relating to land parcels Nairobi/Block 136/8636 and 8661
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Murimi Githinji & 2 others v Embakasi Ranching Co.Ltd & 2 others [2020] KEELC 137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Case Number 200 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/137/eng@2020-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.