Dinesh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Tor Bjornsen (Suing in their capacity as Officials of Ananda Marga Mission in Kenya v Constituencies Development Fund Board & 11 others [2020] KEELC 2551 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled land titles bought from a company that had no right to sell plots reserved for a public school.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit properties were initially reserved for public purpose
The properties were reserved for construction of a nursery and primary school, as shown by the sub-division scheme, the vendor's letter and the Ministry of Lands correspondence
The court relied on the sub-division scheme attached by the Plaintiffs, the vendor's letter of 17th December 2009 confirming reservation for schools, and the letters of 3rd February 2011 and 16th May 2011 showing the land had vested in the Permanent Secretary Treasury for the public. It concluded the reservation was clear.
Whether the sale of the suit properties to the Plaintiff was lawful
The re-allocation of public land was unlawful; the vendor had no good title to pass and the Plaintiffs' titles were a nullity
Because the land was reserved for public purpose, it was unavailable for re-allocation to Kariobangi Gikabu Company Limited. The purported sale was therefore illegal and unprocedural, and the Plaintiffs, who were aware of the irregularity, acquired no title under the proviso to Section 26 of the Land Registration Act.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to the prayers sought
The Plaintiffs were not entitled to any of the prayers and the suit was dismissed with costs
Having found the land reserved for public purpose and the Plaintiffs' titles a nullity, the court held the Plaintiffs could not obtain demolition orders against the public school built by the 2nd Defendant. All prayers were refused and the suit dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Title acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme is indefensible under the proviso to Section 26 of the Land Registration Act
- Land reserved for a public purpose cannot be re-allocated to a private person; a vendor without title passes none
Court orders
#- 1.Plaintiff's suit dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution establishing the Environment and Land Court (as the court seized of the land dispute)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dinesh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Tor Bjornsen (Suing in their capacity as Officials of Ananda Marga Mission in Kenya v Constituencies Development Fund Board & 11 others [2020] KEELC 2551 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Case No. 674 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2551/eng@2020-05-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.