Kariuki v Harunani & another; Chief Land Registrar (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landlord won an eviction after serving the required three-month Land Act notice, and the court flagged the occupants' title documents as likely forgeries.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with the statutory eviction procedure under the Land Act
The applicant complied with Sections 152A, 152B, 152E and 152G by serving a three-month eviction notice on the 1st Respondent, the Deputy County Commissioner and the OCPD, and the application was allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3 and 4.
The court found the eviction notice dated 18th October 2021 was served together with the letter dated 1st October 2021 and copied to the DCC and OCPD. Service on the 1st Respondent was undisputed. The 2nd Respondent, having applied to be joined and actively participated, could not distance itself from its relationship with the 1st Respondent on the ground that no notice was served on it.
Mode of instituting the proceedings - notice of motion versus plaint
The applicant could not be faulted for instituting the matter by way of a miscellaneous application/notice of motion since the Land Act does not clearly prescribe the procedure, and the issue had already been addressed in the ruling on the preliminary objection.
The court noted that from a reading of Sections 152A and 152E of the Land Act it is not clear how a party ought to approach the court for relief. Relying on Abdi Abdulahi Sinko v Ben Chikamai, it held that a notice of motion is proper where the specific procedure is not clearly stipulated, and what matters is that the affected party is heard.
Authenticity of the parties' competing titles and documents
The Respondents' title and transfer documents bore the hallmarks of forgery - registration two minutes apart on the same day, a transfer referring to a different parcel (IR No 60756), and pen amendments - while the applicant's deed plan was certified by the Director of Surveys.
The court perused the titles and transfer and found the chronology implausible: the mother title registered at 11.25Hrs and the resultant title and transfer at 11.27Hrs on 25th October 1993. The National Land Commission's verified report and the uncontroverted parliamentary Hansard on the missing deed file supported the applicant's case, and the Respondents and Interested Party failed to counter these averments.
Effect of prior Court of Appeal and High Court decisions on ownership
The prior decisions in the Magugu cases were decided on preliminary objections of law, did not delve into evidence or ownership, and the applicant was never a party to them; they could not establish the 2nd Respondent's ownership.
The court perused the decisions in Margaret Wairimu Magugu v Karura Investment Limited (2017 and 2019) and agreed with the applicant that both were decided purely on a preliminary objection and that the applicant, as owner of the suit property, was never a party to those matters.
Legal principles established
#- Where the specific procedure for approaching the court is not clearly stipulated, a suit may properly be instituted by way of notice of motion, provided the affected party is accorded an opportunity to be heard.
- An owner seeking eviction under section 152E of the Land Act must serve an eviction notice of not less than three months on the occupant, the Deputy County Commissioner and the Officer Commanding Police Division.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 25th May 2022 allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3 and 4
- 2.Order of eviction issued against Suleiman Abdulshakur Harunani, Karura Investments Limited and their agents and/or servants from L.R. Number 12422/319
- 3.Messrs Vince Hamilton Auctioneers directed to conduct the eviction exercise
- 4.Officer Commanding Police Division, Kasarani directed to provide security during the eviction and maintain law and order
- 5.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 152A, 152B, 152E and 152G of the Land Act as amended by the Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 28 of 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Cherekweny v Cherekweny (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8330 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8330 (KLR)27 Nov 2025
- Cherekweny v Cherekweny (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8330 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8330 (KLR)27 Nov 2025
- Kamau & 4 others (The Registered Trustees of New Testament Church Of God Kenya) v Njuguna t/a Charismata Ministries Network & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6065 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6065 (KLR)18 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki v Harunani & another; Chief Land Registrar (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Application E050 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16418/eng@2023-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.