Satima Enterprises Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2022] KEELC 1617 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land court cancelled Satima Enterprises' Mombasa title because land already reserved and used for public purposes cannot be allocated to private buyers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property was available for alienation
It was not; it had already been alienated to the East African Community and later the Customs Department/KRA, and was developed for public purposes
The property was allocated in 1975 to the East African Community which built bungalows and maisonettes under an approved Part Development Plan. Development and approved reservation meant the land was not un-alienated Government land within the meaning of section 2 of the Government Lands Act. It therefore remained public land unavailable for allocation to a private entity.
Whether the Commissioner of Lands had power to allocate the property
He did not; power to alienate un-alienated Government land was the preserve of the President, with limited delegated exceptions not applicable here
Section 3 of the Government Lands Act vested the power to alienate un-alienated Government land in the President. Delegation to the Commissioner was confined to religious, charitable, educational or sports purposes. None applied. Following James Joram Nyaga, the Commissioner's purported allocation and the resulting grant were a nullity.
Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to the orders in the Counterclaim
Yes; the Plaintiff's title, being derived from an illegal and unprocedural allocation, was liable to cancellation under section 26 of the Land Registration Act
Having declared the alienation null and void, the title arising from it could not stand. Section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act permits challenge to a title acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. The court agreed with Moses Okata Owuor that an irregularly obtained title must be cancelled, and allowed the counterclaim.
Legal principles established
#- Land reserved, developed and occupied for public purposes is not un-alienated Government land available for allocation to private persons
- Under section 3 of the Government Lands Act (repealed), the power to alienate un-alienated Government land vested in the President, not the Commissioner of Lands
- Under section 26 of the Land Registration Act, a title acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme is liable to cancellation
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Defendant's Counter-claim is allowed in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Amended Defence and Counter-claim dated 4th July 2007; prayer (a) had already been allowed
- 2.The Letter of Allotment dated 7th December 1989 and Grant No. CR 20023/1 issued to the Plaintiff are declared null and void
- 3.Rectification of the Register and cancellation of the Plaintiff's title in favour of the 1st Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); suit transferred from the High Court, Civil Division
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Satima Enterprises Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & another [2022] KEELC 1617 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC No. 1341 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1617/eng@2022-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.