Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case (further amended Plaint filed 9th November 2017, Kerugoya)· [2022] KEELC 738 (KLR)

Samuel H. Kanyi & another v County Government of Kerugoya [2022] KEELC 738 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 March 2022
ECE.C. Cherono
2,611 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court confirmed the plaintiffs' plot allocation but dismissed their Kshs. 11.4 million compensation claim because an unregistered valuer prepared the valuation and damages weren't proved.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs sued the County Government of Kirinyaga (successor to the defunct Kirinyaga County Council) claiming Kshs. 11,415,240 as compensation for two plots, Kiine/Sagana/373/A75 and Kiine/Sagana/373/268, which they said had been allocated to them in 1988 for 99 years. They alleged that after investing in building materials, architectural plans and a timber yard, they were evicted following a successful suit by the true owner in the Nyeri High Court, and that the Council's promise of compensation or alternative plots was never honoured. The Defendant denied that the plots existed or were ever allocated, attacked the plaintiffs' valuation report as prepared by an unqualified valuer relying on hearsay, and contended the plaintiffs failed to produce allotment letters, receipts or records of profits. The court framed three issues: allotment, entitlement to compensation, and costs. It found that the plaintiffs had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that they were allotted the plots, relying on the Council's development-authority letters and the Nyeri High Court judgment in which the Council's own clerk testified for them. However, the compensation claim failed: PW3 admitted he held no practising licence and based his valuation on clients' oral explanations without documents. Applying Section 21 of the Valuers Act and Thomas Kimagut Sambu v National Land Commission, the court held the valuation incurably defective and inadmissible. The claim being one for special damages requiring strict proof, and applying Capital Fish Kenya Ltd v Kenya Power, the court found no credible evidence to support any award. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant on 4th March 2022.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiffs were allotted the plots by the defunct Kirinyaga County Council

Holding

Yes - on the letters of development authority and the Nyeri High Court judgment, allocation was proved on a balance of probabilities

Reasoning

The plaintiffs produced letters from the Council granting authority to develop the plots, and the judgment in Nyeri High Court Civil Case No. 15 of 1991 showed the clerk of the defunct Council testified supporting their occupation. The court found the defendant's witness untruthful in denying the plots existed, and applying the balance of probabilities standard, held allocation proved.

p. 3
02

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation

Holding

No - the valuation report was inadmissible and special damages were not strictly proved

Reasoning

PW3 admitted he had no practising licence and based his figures on clients' verbal explanations without supporting documents. Relying on Section 21 of the Valuers Act and Thomas Kimagut Sambu v National Land Commission, the court held the report incurably defective. Since the claim was one for special damages requiring strict proof, and no credible evidence supported the figures, compensation could not be awarded.

p. 4
03

Who should bear the costs

Holding

The defendant, the successful party, was awarded costs

Reasoning

Following dismissal of the suit, costs followed the event and were awarded to the defendant under the general rule that costs follow the event.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An individual may only carry on business as a practicing valuer if registered under Section 21 of the Valuers Act; a valuation by an unregistered valuer is incurably defective and inadmissible
  • Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved with particularity

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Valuers ActSection 21

Cases cited (5)

  • Thomas Kimagut Sambu v National Land Commission & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Capital Fish Kenya Limited v The Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees vs Sifa International Limited
    (2016) eKLR
  • Macharia & Waiguru vs Muranga Municipal Council & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Provincial Insurance Co. EA Ltd vs Mordekai Mwanga Nandwa
    KSM CACA 179 of 1995 (Ur)
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court original jurisdiction (land claim for compensation)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel H. Kanyi & another v County Government of Kerugoya [2022] KEELC 738 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Case (further amended Plaint filed 9th November 2017, Kerugoya). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/738/eng@2022-03-04

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