Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case (Chuka) – plaint dated February 8, 2021 (number not stated in judgment)· [2022] KEELC 3256 (KLR)

Mucheke v Director General Kenya Urban Roads & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E001 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3256 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 June 2022
5,663 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~23 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered KURA and its contractor to pay a church Kshs 11.5 million for unlawfully demolishing its building on private land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Baptist Convention of Kenya, registered proprietor of LR KARINGANI/NDAGANI/594 in Chuka, sued after its commercial building with 14 rental shops was demolished on April 4, 2020 during the construction of Moi Girls' Road. It sought declarations of ownership and a right to reconstruct, Kshs 8,500,000 being the value of the building, mesne profits, and general damages for ridicule and loss of reputation. The 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants (including KURA and the Attorney General) denied liability, asserted the structures were on a road reserve and that the plaintiff's title was fraudulently procured; the 3rd defendant was dropped and the 2nd defendant did not participate. The court framed five issues. It held the plaintiff's title was good and indefeasible under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, the fraud allegations being unproved. A government surveyor (PW3) established through a court-ordered report that the demolished buildings stood wholly within parcel 594 and did not encroach on the road reserve; the demolitions were therefore unlawful and breached Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution. The court awarded Kshs 8,500,000 compensatory damages per the Ultimate Valuers report and Kshs 3,000,000 general damages for trespass, actionable per se. However, the claim for mesne profits and non-user failed for want of proof of the alleged rent, no receipts having been produced. Judgment was entered jointly and severally against the 1st and 2nd defendants, with costs and interest to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff holds good title to LR KARINGANI/NDAGANI/594

Holding

Yes - the plaintiff is the bona fide registered and indefeasible owner protected under Article 40 of the Constitution; the defendants' allegations of fraud were not proved

Reasoning

The title deed dated February 13, 2002 and a certificate of official search dated February 12, 2020 were produced. Under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, registration vests absolute ownership. The defendants pleaded fraudulent and illegal procurement but tendered no evidence; fraud must be strictly proved and general accusations are insufficient. The plaintiff is thus protected under Article 40.

02

Whether the demolished building stood on the plaintiff's land or on a road reserve

Holding

The buildings stood on parcel No KARINGANI/NDAGANI/594 and did not encroach on the road reserve

Reasoning

PW3, a government surveyor who visited the site pursuant to a court order and prepared an independent report dated May 5, 2020, established that the demolished buildings were within parcel 594 and did not encroach the road reserve, and that the approved part-development plan showed the road did not affect parcel 594. Her evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. DW1 also confirmed the road only borders the plot.

p. 8
03

Whether the demolition was lawful

Holding

The demolition was unlawful and in breach of Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution

Reasoning

Property standing on private land was demolished without authority and without due process of compulsory acquisition. The plaintiff had obtained approvals from the Commissioner of Lands and the County Government and had a legitimate expectation. The defendants, chiefly KURA, were therefore liable for the destruction of the plaintiff's property.

p. 8
04

Quantum of compensation

Holding

Kshs 8,500,000 compensatory damages per the Ultimate Valuers report and Kshs 3,000,000 general damages for trespass

Reasoning

The valuation report by Ultimate Valuers Ltd put the improvement value of the demolished premises at Kshs 8,500,000, which the court awarded as compensatory damages. For general damages, the court noted trespass is actionable per se and, considering all circumstances, awarded Kshs 3,000,000. The mesne profits and non-user claim failed for want of proof.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corrupt scheme
  • Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; something more than a mere balance of probabilities is required
  • Mesne profits, being special damages, must be both pleaded and proved with supporting material before the court
  • Trespass is actionable per se and general damages may be awarded without proof of actual loss

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Compensatory damages based on the value of the property demolished – Kshs 8,500,000/= against the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and severally
  2. 2.General damages for distress, pain and suffering – Kshs 3,000,000/=
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff plus interest from the date of judgment until payment in full at the court's rate

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Actsection 26
  • Land Registration Actsection 24
  • Land Registration Actsection 25
  • Evidence Actsections 107(1) and 109
  • Environment and Land Court Act No 19 of 2011section 13(7)
  • Land Actsection 113
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 13
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 47

Cases cited (13)

  • Isaac Gathungu Wanjohi & Another –vs- Attorney General & 6 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Virendra Ramji Guoka & 3 Others –vs- The Hon AG
    ELC No 480 of 2011
  • Livingstone –vs- Rawyards Coal Co
    (1880) 5 App Cases 25
  • Mike Maina Kamau –vs- Attorney General
    [2017] eKLR
  • Simon Nyachae & another –vs- County Government of Mombasa
    [2020] eKLR
  • Fredrick Byakika –vs- Mutiso Menezes International Unlimited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Maurice Oduor Okech –vs- The Chequred Flag Limited
    [2011] eKLR
  • Kenneth Kimani Mburu & another –vs- Kibe Muigai Holdings Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Gladys Wanjiru Ngacha –vs- Theresa Chepsaat & 4 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Central Bank of Kenya –vs- Trust Bank Limited & 4 Others
    [1996] eKLR
  • Attorney General –vs- Halal Meat Products Limited
    (2016) eKLR
  • Peter Mwangi Mbuthia & another v Samow Edin Osman
    (2014) eKLR
  • Karanja Mbugua & another v Marybin Holding Co Ltd
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act No 19 of 2011, section 13(7)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mucheke v Director General Kenya Urban Roads & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E001 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 3256 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Case (Chuka) – plaint dated February 8, 2021 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3256/eng@2022-06-06

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