Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 23rd July, 2018)· [2021] KEELC 2549 (KLR)

County Government of Tana River v Mohamed Gore Bulale & 3 others [2021] KEELC 2549 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 July 2021
6,461 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~26 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that unsurveyed, unregistered land in Tana River belongs to the local community, not private buyers, and blocked its sale and development.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The County Government of Tana River, through a Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2018, sought a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from dealing with an unsurveyed parcel of land measuring approximately 250 metres by 3.5 kilometres at Damajalley area, Madogo ward, allegedly held by the County Government in trust for the local (Munyoyaya) community. The 3rd and 4th Respondents admitted selling a portion to the 1st and 2nd Respondents under a sale agreement dated 14th December 2017, asserting the land was private family land of the Wato family held under customary right of occupancy, though they conceded it was neither registered nor surveyed. The 1st Respondent claimed to have bought part of the land after due diligence and had planted crops. The court, applying Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited, first determined the character of the land. Relying on Articles 61, 63 and 64 of the Constitution, Sections 6, 10(3) and 12 of the Community Land Act and the Survey Act, and following Bahola Mkalindi Rhigho, the court held that the property, being unadjudicated and unregistered, remained unregistered community land held in trust by the County Government. The Applicant therefore established a prima facie case with overwhelming chances of success and demonstrated irreparable loss to the community's livelihood and inter-generational rights not compensable in damages. The court found no need to consider balance of convenience and confirmed the interim injunction pending hearing and determination of the substantive suit, with costs to the Respondents jointly and severally.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit property is private land or unregistered community land

Holding

The suit property is unregistered community land held in trust by the County Government of Tana River for the local community, including the 3rd and 4th Respondents

Reasoning

Article 61(2) of the Constitution classifies land as public, community or private. Private land under Article 64 must be registered under freehold or leasehold tenure or declared private by statute. The 3rd Respondent admitted the land is neither registered nor surveyed, and the annexed sketch plan was not authenticated by the Director of Survey as required by the Survey Act. Since the land was never adjudicated or registered, it remains community land held by the County Government in trust under Section 10(3) of the Community Land Act.

p. 8
02

Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case

Holding

Having found the suit property is community land, the Applicant established a prima facie case with overwhelming chances of success

Reasoning

The Applicant, as trustee under Section 10(3) of the Community Land Act, demonstrated that the property is unregistered community land which the 3rd and 4th Respondents had no authority to dispose of to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The court relied on Bahola Mkalindi Rhigho, holding that unadjudicated trust land belongs to local tribes and only adjudication and registration transform it into private land. This established a prima facie case with overwhelming chances of success.

p. 9
03

Whether irreparable injury not compensable by damages was demonstrated

Holding

The second Giella principle was satisfied - the community would suffer irreparable loss of livelihood and inter-generational rights not compensable in damages

Reasoning

The Applicant showed that the Munyoyaya community derives its livelihood from farming on the suit property, and that the land is generational, inter-generational and intra-generational in character. Disposition of unregistered community land would defeat the community's social, economic and cultural rights and forestall ongoing adjudication programmes. Such ancestral land, heritage and livelihood loss cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages, satisfying the second principle.

p. 9
04

Whether the balance of convenience needed consideration

Holding

Having satisfied the first two principles, the court found no reason to consider the third principle

Reasoning

Under the Giella cascade, once the applicant establishes a prima facie case and irreparable injury, the court need not resort to balance of convenience. The court expressly declined to engage the third principle because the first two were demonstrated.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Until any parcel of community land has been registered in accordance with the Community Land Act, it remains unregistered community land held in trust by the County Government on behalf of the communities pursuant to Article 63(3) of the Constitution
  • Unadjudicated and unregistered trust land belongs to the local tribes, groups, families and individuals of the area, and only adjudication and registration can transform it into private land
  • The survey plan must be authenticated by the Director of Survey or an authorised Government Surveyor for land to be deemed surveyed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd July, 2018 is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.Temporary injunction restraining the Respondents jointly and/or severally, their agents, servants, assigns or anyone acting on their behalf, from clearing bushes, dealing in, trespassing, fencing, transferring, disposing, erecting structures or in any other manner interfering with the local community's use and quiet possession of the suit property pending hearing and determination of the substantive suit
  3. 3.The interim orders issued in the first instance are confirmed pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  4. 4.The Respondents shall bear the costs of the application jointly and severally

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 61(2), 63, 63(2), 63(3), 64, Article 6(2), Fourth Schedule
  • Community Land ActSections 6, 10(3), 12, 14
  • Survey ActSections 2, 32
  • County Government ActNot specified
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella –Vs- Cassman Brown Co. Ltd
    (1973) 358 / (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited –Vs- Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • American Cyanamid Co. –Vs- Ethicon Ltd
    (1975) 2 WLR 316
  • Bahola Mkalindi Rhigho & 9 Others –Vs- Michael Seth Kaseme & 3 Others
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Environment and Land Court) - land classified as community land under Article 63

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government of Tana River v Mohamed Gore Bulale & 3 others [2021] KEELC 2549 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 23rd July, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2549/eng@2021-07-02

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