Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case No. 15 of 2020· [2020] KEELC 1935 (KLR)

Samuel Mutingu Akibaya v Ezina E. Akibaya [2020] KEELC 1935 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 June 2020
1,541 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that a joint property owner cannot lock out their co-owner — both have equal rights to use and run a jointly owned business.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, stepson of the defendant, sued for access to two land parcels, North Maragoli/Mbale/1320 and Kakamega/Mbale/1228, jointly registered in the names of both parties, on which stands a commercial building housing a bar, restaurant and lodges known as North End. He alleged that under an understanding between them the parties would alternate in running the businesses, that he left the business to the defendant in 2000 when he departed for Germany, and that the defendant had since exclusively run it and denied him access. He sought access to run the business, mesne profits and general damages. The defendant admitted joint ownership but contended the plaintiff had no interest in running or occupying the premises, asserting she had run the bar since 1974 without his contribution. The court applied sections 24(a), 26(1) and 91(4) of the Land Registration Act and authorities on joint tenancy, including Kivuitu v Kivuitu, Isabel Chelangat v Samuel Tiro and Bull v Bull, finding the parties joint tenants each entitled to possession and enjoyment of the parcels and the businesses. The court held the plaintiff entitled to access and to run the business jointly with the defendant, and alternatively ordered that the parties engage a licensed property agent to sell the parcels and share the proceeds equally. Mesne profits and general damages were not awarded as unproved. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of joint registration under the Land Registration Act

Holding

Registration vests absolute ownership; joint tenants each own an undivided equal share and each is entitled to possession; the defendant could not deny the plaintiff access to the businesses

Reasoning

The court applied sections 24(a), 26(1) and 91(4) of the Land Registration Act, holding that joint tenancy confers on each joint owner, vis-à-vis third parties, the properties of a single owner, and as between themselves equal undivided rights including possession. Given the joint registration established without dispute, the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession and user of the commercial building, which existed when the properties were gifted to the litigants jointly in 2000.

p. 2
02

Whether mesne profits and general damages were payable

Holding

Not awarded as unproved

Reasoning

Although the plaintiff sought mesne profits and general damages for loss of user, the court found the claim unproved and declined to award them, granting only access and joint management of the business or, alternatively, sale and equal division of proceeds.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A joint tenant co-owner is entitled to possession of the land and cannot be excluded by the other co-owner

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the plaintiff do access the premises situate on land parcel Nos. North Maragoli/Mbale/1320 and Kakamega/Mbale/1228 and run the business jointly with the defendant
  2. 2.That alternatively, the parties engage a licensed property agent to sell the two parcels and share the proceeds equally
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 24(a)
  • Land Registration ActSection 26(1)
  • Land Registration ActSection 91(4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Elijah Makeri Nyangw'ra vs Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another
    (2013) eKLR
  • Kivuitu vs Kivuitu
    1991 eKLR 248
  • Isabel Chelangat vs Samuel Tiro
    (2012) eKLR
  • Bull vs Bull
    (1955) 1WB 234
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land parcels North Maragoli/Mbale/1320 and Kakamega/Mbale/1228

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Mutingu Akibaya v Ezina E. Akibaya [2020] KEELC 1935 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Case No. 15 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1935/eng@2020-06-24

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