Ashish Chandrakant Ravat & another v County Government of Kisumu & another [2021] KEELC 1368 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court stopped the County Government from interfering with privately owned land, ruling that unproven fraud allegations and re-allocation of already alienated land carry no weight.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners established a prima facie case warranting interlocutory injunctive and conservatory orders
The court found that the Petitioners demonstrated how they acquired the suit properties and that the Respondents' allegations of fraud had little foundation; the Application was merited.
The Respondents alleged the titles were fraudulently acquired but did not specifically plead or prove the fraud. The Petitioners traced their chain of title to amalgamated and subdivided parcels, paid rates to the 1st Respondent, and obtained change-of-user and development approvals from the same Respondent. A party challenging title must prove improper acquisition; mere allegations are insufficient. The Respondents' continued acceptance of rates undermined their claim.
Whether the alleged presidential directive and allotment of the suit properties to the schools was lawful
The court found the alleged presidential directive unlawful because the land had already been allotted for a different purpose; the Commissioner of Lands could only dispose of unalienated government land.
Under section 3(a) of the Government Lands Act, the President/Commissioner could only make grants of unalienated government land. Since the land had already been alienated, re-allocation was void ab initio. Article 62(4) requires disposal of public land in terms of an Act of Parliament. The Respondents failed to prove proper allotment to the schools.
Whether the Respondents' eviction and demolition of the Petitioners' developments violated constitutional rights
The court found the Respondents did not follow the right procedure in evicting the Petitioners; demolitions carried out over a weekend without regard to the value of the properties were improper.
The demolitions occurred over a weekend without notice, without identification of those involved, and despite the Respondents having approved change of user and collected rates. A finding of unlawfully acquired property is required before interfering with rights under Article 40, and none had been made. The threatened settlement of traders would permanently alter the properties' character.
Legal principles established
#- Fraud must be specifically pleaded with facts constituting the fraud, not general legal conclusions
- Where a title is challenged as unlawfully acquired, the holder must demonstrate through evidence that it was properly acquired; the process of acquisition is material
- Land allocated for a specific public purpose cannot be re-allocated contrary to that purpose; a presidential directive allocating already alienated land is contrary to law
- An applicant for a conservatory order must demonstrate a prima facie case, likelihood of prejudice from violation, and that it is in the public interest to grant the order
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, a temporary injunction and a conservatory order restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants or any person claiming through them from trespassing upon, interfering with or otherwise interfering with the Petitioners' use and possession of LR Kisumu Municipality/Block 6/608, 609, 610, 611, 612 and 613
- 2.Costs of the Application to be in the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 162 and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Environment and Land Court Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashish Chandrakant Ravat & another v County Government of Kisumu & another [2021] KEELC 1368 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 24th March 2021 (Notice of Motion Application dated 24th March 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1368/eng@2021-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.