Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment as extracted (appeal against Nairobi CMCCC No 6427 of 2002)· [2020] KEELC 1652 (KLR)

Angeline Njeri Macharia v Rose Aluoch Aroko & 2 others [2020] KEELC 1652 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya - Environment and Land Court
14 July 2020
3,132 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court threw out a land trespass judgment because the magistrate ignored a filed defence, confirming owners can claim mesne profits against trespassers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal and cross-appeal against the judgment of Hon A M Obura, Senior Principal Magistrate, delivered on 10 June 2019 in Nairobi CMCCC No 6427 of 2002, in which the late Gondah Elkana Syongoh, who had purchased LR Nairobi Block 93/31 at a public auction conducted by Fidelity Bank Limited and become registered proprietor, obtained a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the property, an order that she vacate within two months, and costs. The defendant appealed on four grounds, principally that the trial court disregarded prior High Court interlocutory orders (by Sheik Amin J and Ringera J) and that it wrongly proceeded on the premise that she had filed no defence when she had filed and served a statement of defence. The Estate's administrators cross-appealed, seeking mesne profits which the trial court had refused on the view that mesne profits apply only in landlord-tenant relationships and are special damages requiring specific pleading. Eboso J first addressed the fourth ground. Holding that pleadings are the foundation of any civil trial, the court found the trial court's determination without reference to the filed and served defence to be a fundamental error amounting to a mistrial, and allowed the appeal on that ground, declining to pronounce on the first three grounds to avoid prejudicing the retrial. On the cross-appeal, relying on Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Megarry and Wade, Black's Law Dictionary and Mistry Valji, the court held that mesne profits are not confined to landlord-tenant relationships but lie against any wrongful possessor; the trial court's contrary finding was an error, so the cross-appeal also succeeded. The trial judgment was set aside and the suit remitted for fresh hearing before a different magistrate, with each party bearing their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether failure to consider the defendant's filed and served statement of defence vitiated the trial

Holding

Yes - it was a grave and fundamental error rendering the trial a mistrial

Reasoning

The appellant filed and served a statement of defence but the Trial Magistrate could not trace it in the court file. Without inviting the parties to address her on the missing defence, she drew issues and determined the suit on the premise that no defence existed. Pleadings are the foundation of a trial and evidence and issues must be anchored in them; hence no proper trial or determination could occur without them.

p. 3
02

Whether mesne profits are recoverable only in a landlord-tenant relationship

Holding

No - the trial magistrate erred; mesne profits lie against any person in wrongful possession

Reasoning

Relying on the statutory definition in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Megarry and Wade's The Law of Real Property, Black's Law Dictionary and Mistry Valji, the court held mesne profits are damages for trespass to land accruing to a property owner against a wrongful possessor. No previous tenancy need be proved. However, the claim remains special damage requiring specific pleading.

p. 4
03

Whether the court should rule on the first three grounds concerning prior High Court interlocutory orders

Holding

Declined, to avoid prejudicing the fresh trial

Reasoning

Having found a mistrial and ordered a fresh trial, the court held that the issues raised by the first three grounds would arise afresh in that trial, and a pronouncement on them might prejudice the parties. The cross-appeal was, however, allowed on the mesne profits point.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Pleadings are the foundation of a civil trial; issues must arise from pleadings and evidence cannot be considered in absence of pleadings
  • Where a trial court frames issues and determines a suit without reference to duly filed and served pleadings, the trial is a mistrial warranting setting aside and retrial
  • Mesne profits are not restricted to landlord-tenant relationships; they accrue to a property owner against a person in wrongful possession
  • Mesne profits are a species of special damages that must be specifically pleaded and proved

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Both the appeal and the cross-appeal are allowed
  2. 2.The Judgment of Hon A M Obura, Senior Principal Magistrate, rendered on 10/6/2019 in Nairobi CMCCC No 6427 of 2002 is set aside
  3. 3.Nairobi CMCCC 6427 of 2002 is remitted back to the Chief Magistrate Court for fresh hearing before a magistrate other than Hon A M Obura
  4. 4.Costs of the impugned trial shall be in the discretion of the trial court upon conclusion of the fresh trial
  5. 5.Parties shall bear their respective costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 rule 13

Cases cited (6)

  • Pauline Muthoni Njoroge v James Njoroge Kamocha & Another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v IEBC & 2 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Cleophas Wanyonyi v Walter Otieno
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Willesden Investment Limited
    [2009] eKLR
  • Mistry Valji v Janendra Rainchard & 2 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Invergue Investments v Hacketh
    [1995] 3 ALL ER 842
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Nairobi
Nairobi CMCCC No 6427 of 2002
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the High Court from the subordinate court (statutory first appeal; no specific provision quoted in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Angeline Njeri Macharia v Rose Aluoch Aroko & 2 others [2020] KEELC 1652 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment as extracted (appeal against Nairobi CMCCC No 6427 of 2002). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1652/eng@2020-07-14

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