Tsadza Tsuma & 3 others v Registrar of Lands Kilifi & 3 others [2022] KEELC 323 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a family's land claim because they sued over a title that had already been subdivided and no longer existed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the deceased was the registered proprietor of the suit property
The deceased was never the registered proprietor; his claim remained aspirational as he only wrote a letter seeking allocation and never objected to the adjudication process.
The letter dated 20th April 1993 by the deceased seeking allocation received no response. The land had been allocated through an adjudication process on 8th March 1993 in favour of the County Council of Kilifi and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants following determination of their objections under the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284. The deceased was alive at the time and lodged no objection within the statutory timelines.
Whether the relief sought could be granted given the state of the title
The relief could not be granted because the title Mgumopatsa/Mazeras/545 had been closed on 20th November 2009 upon subdivision and no longer existed when the suit was filed.
The Green Card produced by the Plaintiffs themselves showed the title was closed and partitioned into four portions (1146-1149) in November 2009, with titles issued to the 4th, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. By the time of filing in December 2018 the title had not existed for nine years, so the prayer for revocation was impossible to grant.
Whether the mediation agreement with the County Government could confer the suit property on the Plaintiffs
No. Land held by a County Government is public land under Article 62(2) of the Constitution which only the National Land Commission may dispose of, and the subdivided portions had been transferred to non-parties.
Although the 4th Defendant ceded its interest in the mediation agreement, parcel 1146 remained registered in its name as public land which only the National Land Commission could dispose of. Parcels 1149 and others had been subdivided and transferred to individuals who were not parties to the suit; adverse findings against them would condemn them unheard.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot grant relief in respect of a title that has been closed and has ceased to exist following subdivision; litigation over a non-existent parcel is misconceived and incompetent.
- Land held by a County Government is public land under Article 62(2) of the Constitution, administered on its behalf by the National Land Commission, which alone may dispose of it.
- A court cannot make adverse findings against persons who are not parties to the suit, as that would condemn them unheard.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tsadza Tsuma & 3 others v Registrar of Lands Kilifi & 3 others [2022] KEELC 323 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/323/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.