DIM Agencies Limited v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KEELC 953 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Lawful proprietorship of the suit land
The Plaintiff was held to be the lawful and registered proprietor on the strength of the title, certificate of official search and confirmation from the Chief Land Registrar
The Plaintiff produced a land sale agreement dated 20th January 2000, evidence of payment of the purchase price, a title showing registration on 21st January 2000, a certificate of official search and a letter from the Chief Land Registrar's office confirming registered ownership. The title was never challenged. The court held that an unchallenged title vests absolute and inviolable rights protected under Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act 2012.
Trespass by the Defendant
The Defendant's erection of a perimeter wall around the suit property and continued occupation constituted trespass
The Plaintiff wrote letters to the Defendant asserting ownership and intention to fence the property; the Defendant acknowledged the correspondence but never challenged the Plaintiff's title in court. Despite this knowledge, the Defendant erected a stone fence/wall around the entire property in February 2018. The court, applying the definition of trespass, found the Defendant's activities unlawful and amounts to trespass.
Entitlement to and quantum of damages
General damages of Kshs 10,000,000/= awarded for trespass; separate compensation under Article 40 refused as duplicative
Trespass being actionable per se, damages were payable without proof of specific loss. Considering the size of the property (approximately 1½ acres) and its prime location off Mombasa Road in Nairobi, and guided by the award in Joshua Ngeno v Kenya Power, the court assessed general damages at Kshs 10,000,000/=. However, because the trespass and the Article 40 infringement were the same acts, a second award would be duplex.
Legal principles established
#- Trespass is actionable per se and once proved the aggrieved party is entitled to general damages without proof of specific loss
- An unchallenged registered title confers absolute and indefeasible rights on the holder under Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act
- A party who disputes another's title must approach the court rather than take the law into their own hands
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration issued that the Plaintiff is the bona-fide and registered owner of L.R No. 9042/617
- 2.Declaration issued that the Defendant has trespassed and is continuing to trespass onto the Plaintiff's property
- 3.General damages of Kenya Shillings 10,000,000/= awarded to the Plaintiff for trespass on land
- 4.The Defendant directed to remove/pull down the perimeter wall around the suit property within 60 days, in default the Plaintiff may demolish it without further notice
- 5.Liberty to apply to the Deputy Registrar for an order for security from the nearest police station and/or sub-county Police Commandant to enforce compliance
- 6.Interest on the general damages award at court rates from the date of judgment
- 7.The Plaintiff to have costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (unspecified provision in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "DIM Agencies Limited v Kenya Airports Authority [2021] KEELC 953 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Plaint dated 12th February 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/953/eng@2021-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.