Twin Properties Investment Limited v Kasarani Settlement Limited (Formerly Known as Kasarani Resettlement Project) & 2 others
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land buyer lost a 12-year ownership battle because she couldn't trace her plot's ownership history back to its original source with documents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Ownership of plot No 44 as between plaintiff and 2nd defendant
The 2nd defendant is the legitimate owner; the plaintiff's claim is unfounded
The larger parcel LR 14235 belonged to Research and Development Forum until November 2007, so neither the 1st defendant nor Kasarani Resettlement Project could have allotted plot 44 in 2002/2005. No evidence showed the Resettlement Project became the 1st defendant, incorporated only in 2007. The 2nd defendant paid Kshs 3 million evidenced by bankers' cheques and receipt.
Burden of proof
He who alleges must prove; the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden
Relying on section 107 of the Evidence Act and Jennifer Nyambura Kamau, the court held the plaintiff, who claimed ownership by purchase, bore the burden of proving its claim and its root of title, which it failed to do.
Trespass and damages
The plaintiff unlawfully trespassed; damages for trespass of Kshs 2,000,000 awarded to the 2nd defendant
Having found the 2nd defendant the legitimate owner and the plaintiff's construction unjustified and without approvals, the court exercised its discretion to award general damages for trespass, pegged at Kshs 2,000,000, inclusive of the debris issue.
Credibility and conduct of parties
Discrepancies in how Simon Nyoro acquired the plot, and the plaintiff's conduct in filing suit while already sued in CMCC No 3552 of 2010 and building without approvals, undermined the plaintiff's case
PW2 and PW3 gave inconsistent accounts of Simon Nyoro's acquisition (purchase, presidential scheme, squatter). The plaintiff filed this suit months after being sued in the magistrates' court, which the court found was meant to scuttle those proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- Certificates of ownership over unallocated/unregistered plots do not confer proprietorship but are analysed with the whole evidence to determine a claimant's interest
- Proof of ownership of unregistered land requires an unbroken documentary chain leading to the root of title, on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed
- 2.The counterclaim of the 1st and 2nd defendants is allowed
- 3.Declaration that the 2nd defendant is the legitimate owner of Plot No 44 on Parcel LR No 14235
- 4.Permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with Plot No 44 in Parcel LR No 14235
- 5.Damages for trespass of Kshs 2,000,000 awarded to the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff
- 6.Plaintiffs condemned to pay costs of the suit to the 1st and 2nd defendants only; no costs awarded to the 3rd defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Environment and Land Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Twin Properties Investment Limited v Kasarani Settlement Limited (Formerly Known as Kasarani Resettlement Project) & 2 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 532 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15625/eng@2022-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.