Njuki v National Lands Commission & 2 others

The allotment letter required acceptance and payment within 30 days; the Plaintiff accepted and paid over two years later without extension, so the allotment had lapsed and could not be revived. The letter lacked a signature page and plan number. DW1's uncontroverted evidence established the land was reserved as a transport corridor, hence not unalienated government land capable of allocation. Indefeasibility under Section 23(1) of the Registration of Titles Act does not protect a title acquired in breach of the law.

The NLC's recommendation was an administrative/statutory decision under Article 68(c)(v); the proper remedy was judicial review or constitutional petition, which the Plaintiff had already pursued and lost. A declaratory order cannot quash such a decision, and once the title was revoked, declaratory orders speaking to non-existent rights cannot issue. The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of the validity of the revocation.

Mesne profits presuppose ownership and wrongful deprivation; since the Plaintiff's title was void ab initio, the foundational ingredient was absent. Even assuming title, mesne profits are akin to special damages requiring specific pleading and proof. The Rent Restriction Tribunal order produced did not identify the suit property or the monthly rent, and no books of account or tax returns were availed.

A permanent injunction requires proof of clear, lawful and legitimate title, which was absent. Compensation is only available for loss of what one lawfully owned. The valuation report of 30 March 2020 was never produced by its maker and carried no probative value. The suit was accordingly dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Defendants.