Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedHCCC No 1627 of 2001 consolidated with ELC No 503 of 2012 (ELC No 503 of 2012 being the lead file)· [2022] KEELC 3857 (KLR)

Kenya Armed Forces Old Comrades Association Registered Trustees v City Council of Nairobi & 7 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 503 of 2012 & Civil Case 1627 of 2001 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELC 3857 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 June 2022
5,253 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed KAFOCA's bid to block a public access road through its Nairobi land, holding the survey plan had wrongly omitted a road reserved since 1977.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, the registered owner of LR No 209/11911 in Madaraka Estate, Nairobi, sued the Attorney General (claim later withdrawn) and the then Nairobi City Council in HCCC No 1627 of 2001, seeking injunctions against cancellation of its title and interference with possession, plus general damages, alleging that the Commissioner of Lands and the County sought to create an access road through its land. In 2012 it filed ELC No 503 of 2012 against the Registered Trustees of Agape Fellowship Centre (2nd defendant), seeking a permanent injunction and damages for trespass after a bulldozer created a road through the property. The two suits were consolidated with ELC No 503 of 2012 as the lead file. The 2nd defendant, whose adjoining plot LR No 209/14680 depends on the road for access, maintained that PDP No 242 of 1977 and PDP No 382 of 1994 had reserved an access road which the plaintiff's 1993 survey wrongly omitted, and that both plots had encroached on the road reserve. The court framed two issues: whether an access road passes through the plaintiff's property, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought. Relying on the Public Roads and Roads of Access Act, the repealed Physical Planning Act and case law on allocation of government land, the court held that planning precedes survey; a survey plan inconsistent with an approved PDP is liable to cancellation. It found the Director of Surveys lawfully cancelled the plaintiff's initial survey plan and directed a re-survey to re-establish the access road, the plaintiff's parcel becoming LR 209/15381. The road being a public road planned in the PDPs, the public, including the 2nd defendant, had a right to use it, rendering the landlock question moot. The plaintiff failed to prove its case, including the claim for damages for the demolished wall. Both suits were dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an access road passes through LR No 209/11911

Holding

Yes - the access road was provided for in PDP No 242 of 1977 and PDP No 382 of 1994 but omitted from the plaintiff's initial survey plan; the Director of Surveys lawfully cancelled the initial survey plan and directed a re-survey.

Reasoning

The court traced the legal framework: PDPs are integral to land use planning; planning precedes allotment and survey. Since the suit land was planned by way of PDPs, its survey plan must have accorded with them. Evidence and correspondence showed the 1977 PDP's road of access was excluded from the plaintiff's survey, so the Director of Surveys acted lawfully in cancelling the plan and ordering re-survey under FR 311/13, resulting in LR 209/15381.

p. 9
02

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and damages

Holding

No. The access road is a public road planned in the PDPs, and the plaintiff did not prove its case to the required standard; both suits were dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

Having found that the road of access existed in the original PDPs, the Commissioner of Lands was within his mandate to seek re-survey to re-establish the road. The landlocked-ness question became moot since the public, including the 2nd defendant, may use the road. The plaintiff's claim, including damages for the demolished wall, was not proved to the required standard.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • The planning of unalienated government land precedes allotment and survey; a survey plan must accord with the approved part development plan, and a survey plan drawn without according with an approved PDP is subject to cancellation by the Director of Surveys.
  • Where an access road was planned in the PDPs, the public, including adjoining owners, have the right to use and access it.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.HCCC No 1627 of 2001 and ELC No 503 of 2012 be and are hereby dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land within Nairobi

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Armed Forces Old Comrades Association Registered Trustees v City Council of Nairobi & 7 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 503 of 2012 & Civil Case 1627 of 2001 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELC 3857 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). HCCC No 1627 of 2001 consolidated with ELC No 503 of 2012 (ELC No 503 of 2012 being the lead file). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3857/eng@2022-06-16

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