Ravat & another v County Government of Kisumu & another (Constitutional Petition 10 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2499 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu protected registered landowners against Kisumu County, holding that fraud claims need proof and evictions need due process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents' allegations of fraud/illegal acquisition of the suit properties defeated the Petitioners' claim
The court held the Petitioners demonstrated acquisition of the titles while the Respondents pleaded fraud generally without particulars; the alleged presidential directive was itself unlawful as the land had already been allotted
The court applied the requirement that fraud be specifically pleaded with facts constituting it. The Respondents merely asserted the titles were fraudulently acquired without showing how. The Petitioners traced the title chain from original parcels Block 6/548 and 549 through amalgamation and subdivision approved by the Respondent's predecessor, and had paid rates and obtained change-of-user approval. The claimed presidential directive allocating land to the schools was held contrary to law because the land was already allocated, and allotments to the schools lapsed for non-compliance.
Whether the Respondents' demolition and repossession complied with the law
The Respondents did not follow the right procedure: the demolition occurred over a weekend without notice, identification or a court order, despite the Respondent having approved change of user and collected rates
The court noted the Respondents themselves had approved development permission and change of user in 2014 and continued receiving rates, so they could not claim ignorance of private title. No determination by the National Land Commission gazetted as required preceded the eviction, and there was no court order authorizing the forcible takeover. The demolitions were carried out over a weekend without regard to the value of the properties.
Whether the Petitioners met the threshold for interim injunctive/conservatory relief
The Petitioners established a prima facie case, threatened irreparable injury through permanent alteration of the properties' character if strangers were settled, and the balance of circumstances favoured granting the injunction
Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman tests and the conservatory-order criteria, the court found a prima facie case given registered title and Respondents' conduct. Although the demolition had already occurred, the threatened settlement of traders would permanently alter the properties, justifying preservation of the subject matter pending the petition. The Respondents were acting contrary to law in settling traders on land allegedly allocated for a specific public purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Fraud must be specifically pleaded with factual particularity; general pleading of the legal conclusion of fraud is insufficient
- A holder of a lease or certificate of lease whose title is challenged must demonstrate by evidence that it was properly acquired; the process of acquisition is material
- Under the Government Lands Act, the Commissioner of Lands could only make grants or dispositions of unalienated government land; re-alienation of land already alienated and designated for particular purposes is void ab initio
- Where land is registered in an applicant's names and a respondent threatens to permanently alter its character, an applicant for injunction cannot be denied relief merely because damages may be quantifiable
Court orders
#- 1.That pending the hearing and determination of this Petition a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants or any person claiming through them from trespassing upon, interfering with, or otherwise interfering with the Petitioners' use and possession of Land Registration Numbers Kisumu Municipality/Block 6/608, 609, 610, 611, 612 and 613
- 2.Costs of the Application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 1,2,3,10(1)&(2),19,20,21,22,25(c),27,40,43,47,50,61,64(b),67,68,73,75,159,162,176,184 and 232(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Environment and Land Court Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ravat & another v County Government of Kisumu & another (Constitutional Petition 10 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2499 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated 24th March 2021 (Constitutional Petition, Environment and Land Court, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2499/eng@2022-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.