Le Monde Foods Ltd v County Government of Kiambu & another (Environment & Land Case 166 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2334 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court voided the National Land Commission's cancellation of private land titles because the owner was never given notice or a hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Root of title and indefeasible ownership
The plaintiff proved an unbroken chain of documents from allocation through registration of Muguga/Gitaru/1084 and its subdivision into 1644-1659, making it the absolute and indefeasible owner
The plaintiff produced receipts for annual plot rent, a letter applying for grant of lease, forwarding of lease documents to the Commissioner of Lands and registration as proprietor on 6/12/1993. The 1st Defendant, which alleged the subdivision never occurred, adduced no evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case, and he who alleges must prove.
Lawfulness of the compulsory acquisition of parcels 1649, 1650, 1651 and 1659
The compulsory acquisition followed due process under Article 40(3) of the Constitution, sections 107, 110 and 115 of the Land Act and the (repealed) Land Acquisition Act, and compensation was paid in full
The parcels were gazetted (with the initial error citing the mother title 487 corrected by Gazette Notice No. 11990 of 23/08/2013), valuation was done, payment vouchers prepared by KeNHA and compensation paid. No one complained. The court therefore found these parcels procedurally acquired and paid for.
Validity of the revocation of titles vide Gazette Notice No. 6862 of 17/07/2017
The revocation was null and void: the plaintiff was never served with notice of the review hearing nor heard, and the NLC improperly revoked the titles itself instead of directing the Land Registrar
There was no evidence of service of the letter dated 21/12/2016, which was also misleadingly addressed to owners of Muguga/Gitaru/1015 rather than 1084. The NLC did not appear to rebut the plaintiff's evidence. Section 14(3) of the NLC Act requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, guided by Article 47. Section 14(5) empowers the Commission only to direct the Registrar to revoke titles, yet the Gazette Notice recorded revocation.
General damages for deprivation of use and possession
General damages awarded at Kshs. 5,000,000.00, taking into account that the plaintiff had not been in possession since 2006 and the land was intended for use as a factory
The plaintiff proved that the 1st Defendant or its predecessor fenced off the suit property denying access and use, but the evidence did not enable precise quantification of loss. Drawing on Willesden Investments Limited v Kenya Hotel Properties Limited, the court adopted a circumstantial assessment rather than the Kshs. 25,000,000.00 urged in submissions.
Legal principles established
#- Proof of ownership of land rests on documentary evidence tracing an unbroken chain to the root of title, proved on a balance of probabilities
- A letter of allotment cannot override or defeat a duly registered title
- Allocated land cannot be reallocated unless the first allocation is validly and lawfully cancelled
- The NLC must give notice and a hearing to affected persons before revoking titles, and must direct the Registrar to revoke rather than itself revoke titles
- A person facing revocation of title is entitled to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution
- Absence of a demand letter is not, alone, a good reason to deny a successful party costs
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the purported allocation of any of Title Nos. Muguga/Gitaru/1644 to 1658 inclusive or any other title derived from Muguga/Gitaru/1084 by the 1st Defendant to the National Government or any other authority is illegal, null and void
- 2.A declaration that the purported cancellation of Title Nos. Muguga/Gitaru/1644 to 1658 by the 2nd Defendant is null and void
- 3.An order invalidating and cancelling Gazette Notice No. 6862 dated 17th July 2017 in so far as it purports to nullify Title Nos. Muguga/Gitaru/1644 to 1659 inclusive
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents/servants or any persons claiming through them from constructing, trespassing or interfering with the plaintiff's use of Land known as Muguga/Gitaru/1644, 1645, 1646, 1647, 1648, 1652, 1653, and 1658
- 5.General damages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000.00 only
- 6.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff plus interest from the date of judgment until payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land title and compulsory acquisition disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Le Monde Foods Ltd v County Government of Kiambu & another (Environment & Land Case 166 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2334 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2334/eng@2022-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.