Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees Registered v City Council of Nairobi [2020] KEELC 1892 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ruled that using land for public parking doesn't prove ownership, and Nairobi City Council was ordered to stop collecting parking fees on Telkom Kenya's property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff lawfully acquired the unsurveyed disputed property
The disputed property was public land owned by the Government of Kenya, not the defendant; the defendant's interest was limited to its parking bays, which it relinquished for Kshs. 14,969,200, and the subsequent allocation and amalgamation were lawful.
The defendant claimed ownership but produced no title; the land was unsurveyed and therefore had no title. Its use for public parking did not confer ownership. The Government allocated the land to the plaintiff and amalgamated it with the plaintiff's parcel, which the court found could only be done over land the Government owned. The defendant's evidence that no Town Planning Committee approved the transaction did not displace the allocation, as the land was not the defendant's to allocate.
Whether the defendant trespassed on the suit property
The defendant's entry on 15th March 2010 to collect parking fees was without the plaintiff's authority or lawful excuse and amounted to trespass.
The suit property, including the disputed property, was registered in the plaintiff's name on 18th January 2007. Having surrendered its interest in the parking bays for consideration, the defendant had no proprietary interest left. Its employees' entry onto the property on 15th March 2010 to demand parking fees from motorists was therefore unauthorised and constituted trespass.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the injunctive reliefs sought
The plaintiff proved its case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to the prohibitory injunction in prayer (a) but not the mandatory injunction in prayer (b), as the defendant was not in possession of the suit property.
Having found lawful acquisition and trespass, the plaintiff proved its claim on a balance of probabilities. The prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from entering, repossessing or levying parking fees was justified. However, since no evidence showed the defendant in possession of the property or any part, there was nothing for a mandatory injunction to remove, and that relief was refused.
Whether the defendant was entitled to the reliefs in its counter-claim
The counter-claim was not proved; the defendant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
The defendant failed to establish ownership of the disputed property or that the amalgamation and issuance of the new title to the plaintiff were illegal, null or void. It also failed to serve the counter-claim on the Commissioner of Lands and the Attorney General whom it had joined. Its claim for cancellation of title, rectification of the register, injunction and damages therefore collapsed.
Legal principles established
#- Use of land for public parking does not establish legal ownership; the owner's interest is limited to the structures (parking bays) erected on public land
- Payment made and received, with receipts issued, for the relinquishment of an interest in land binds the party unless that evidence is rebutted
- A party with no proprietary interest in land that enters it to collect parking fees is a trespasser
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the plaint, being a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from entering, taking possession of, repossessing or levying any parking fees on the parking bays on the suit property and from harassing the plaintiff's tenants
- 2.The defendant's counter-claim dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- 3.The plaintiff awarded the costs of the suit and the counter-claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the plaint and counter-claim (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees Registered v City Council of Nairobi [2020] KEELC 1892 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1892/eng@2020-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.