Gicheha & another v Nairobi County Government
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an allotment letter without a Part Development Plan is unenforceable, ordering only a refund of plot payments with interest.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity and enforceability of an allotment letter without a PDP
Prayers (a) to (d), being in the nature of specific performance, were refused because the plaintiffs did not prove issuance of a PDP validating the allotment
The court relied on Lilian Waithera Gachuhi for the proposition that an allotment letter is only an intention to allocate land, not a title, and on Ali Mohamed Dagane for the requirement of a PDP. Since the plaintiffs proved no PDP, the allotment was invalid and unenforceable, so specific performance-type reliefs could not issue.
Refund of monies paid under the failed allotment
Refund of Kshs. 32,380/= each was granted as pleaded and proved
The court was satisfied the plaintiffs pleaded and proved payment of Kshs. 32,380/= each to the Defendant. The alternative prayer for refund succeeded even though the primary prayers for allocation failed.
Rate and commencement date of interest
Interest awarded at court rates from the date of filing suit; the 25% commercial rate claim failed for want of pleading and proof
Applying Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act and the principles in Jane Wanjiku Wambu, the court held that pre-suit interest requires pleading and proof of contractual or mercantile basis. No basis for 25% was disclosed, so the standard court rates from filing suit were awarded.
General damages for breach of contract
Disallowed as contrary to settled principle
Relying on Kenya Tourist Development Corporation v Sundowner Lodge and Kenya Power v Birundu, the court reaffirmed that general damages are not recoverable for breach of contract and declined to deviate.
Claim for Kshs. 3,000,000/= current market value raised only in submissions
Rejected because parties are bound by their pleadings
The court invoked the pleadings principle from IEBC v Mutinda Mule, Malawi Railways v Nyasulu, Adetoun Oladeji and Raila Odinga, holding that a court cannot adjudicate claims not made in the pleadings; the market-value claim was never prayed for in the plaint.
Legal principles established
#- A letter of allotment is an intention by the Government to allocate land; it is not a title
- A valid letter of allotment must be accompanied by a Part Development Plan (PDP); without it the allotment is not legally valid or enforceable
- General damages are not recoverable in cases of alleged breach of contract
- Parties are bound by their pleadings and a court cannot adjudicate on claims not raised in the pleadings
- Interest prior to filing suit is a matter of substantive law and must be pleaded and proved (contractual rate, mercantile usage, statute or implied agreement)
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs are granted the sum of Kshs. 32,380/= each, being a refund of all monies paid to the Defendant for each of the suit plots, with interest at court rates per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment in full
- 2.The Plaintiffs shall have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, as the court sits as an Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gicheha & another v Nairobi County Government", Case Analysis (2022). Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 401 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15437/eng@2022-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.