Godfrey G Gichana Akuma v City Council of Nairobi & another [2020] KEELC 976 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court confirmed that a county cannot quietly hand back repossessed land to a former allottee, so a later buyer from that allottee gets nothing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff was the lawful owner of Plot No. D2-268, Kayole
Yes. The 1st defendant lawfully repossessed the plot from the Kilonzos for arrears after 30 days' notice and lawfully re-allocated it to the plaintiff, who took possession and developed it. The purported return of the plot to the Kilonzos was illegal, null and void.
The plaintiff produced minutes of the 1st defendant's Housing Development Committee confirming default by the Kilonzos, repossession and re-allocation to the plaintiff. DW2 admitted the default and repossession but gave no evidence of any lawful process by which the plot was returned to them; the plaintiff was never involved, his allotment was never cancelled and his payments never refunded. The cancellation was therefore a nullity and high-handed, and no valid interest passed to the 2nd defendant.
Whether the Kilonzos could pass valid title to the 2nd defendant
No. Having no valid interest after the nullified return, the Kilonzos had nothing to transfer; only the plaintiff could dispose of the suit property.
Because the process divesting the plaintiff was illegal and void, the Kilonzos retained no valid interest capable of passing to the 2nd defendant by the sale of 22nd February 2006. The plaintiff remained the lawful owner, so the 2nd defendant's claim of ownership and the enforcement notice and demolition that followed could not stand.
Entitlement to reliefs
Yes. The plaintiff proved his case to the required standard and was entitled to the permanent injunction and declaration of ownership sought.
The court found the plaintiff was at all material times the lawful owner and was subjected to illegal harassment by the defendants, including demolition of structures for which he had sought and paid planning approval. Both heads of relief sought in the plaint were granted, with costs following the event.
Legal principles established
#- Once property is lawfully repossessed and re-allocated to a new allottee who takes possession, the allocating authority cannot purport to return it to the former allottee without following due process, including cancelling the new allotment and refunding payments.
- A person who has lawfully acquired title to land can only be divested of it in accordance with the law; an illegal purported cancellation is a nullity and passes no valid interest to third parties.
- Costs follow the event as a general rule absent reason to depart.
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, assigns and/or otherwise from trespassing on, selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with all that parcel of land known as Plot No. D2-268, Kayole, Nairobi.
- 2.A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of all that parcel of land known as Plot No. D2-268, Kayole, Nairobi.
- 3.The costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; original civil jurisdiction over the land dispute (suit property Plot No. D2-268, Kayole, Nairobi)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Godfrey G Gichana Akuma v City Council of Nairobi & another [2020] KEELC 976 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (suit filed 13th July 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/976/eng@2020-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.