Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (application dated 10th January 2024)· [2024] KEELC 1646 (KLR)

Macharia & another v Nine Sisters Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E017 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1646 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 March 2024
1,214 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court blocked the sale of disputed Nakuru land, ruling that registered title certificates beat an undocumented membership register claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru delivered on 14th March 2024 by A. O. Ombwayo J, on a Notice of Motion dated 10th January 2024. Samuel Macharia and Judy Njeri Thuo sought a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from trespassing on, encroaching, advertising for sale, selling, transferring, sub-dividing or registering subdivisions over nine parcels of land in Miti Mingi/Mbaruk Block 8 (Kianjoya), and from interfering with their ownership, possession, use and enjoyment, with costs in the cause. Samuel Macharia swore he was the sole registered proprietor of the parcels, having held Certificates of Title issued on 10th July 1997, inherited from his late father Daniel Mwangi, evidenced by official searches of 2019 and 2020. He alleged that in 2021 the Respondents, through Kianjoya Enterprises Ltd, placed a caution on the parcels and that in July 2023, in collusion with Lands Registry officers at Naivasha, caused the original green cards to be deleted and replaced with new ones creating ownership rights in the Respondents, with subdivisions ongoing. The 1st respondent, Hon Maina Wanjigi, deposed that she owned the properties, originally LR No.4630/7, 8, 9 and LR 8851/2, later converted under the Registration of Land Act and subdivided for sale to purchasers between 1996 and 2005, with the parcels annexed to a members register. Applying Sections 24(a) and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, the court found the applicants had registered title and a prima facie case with likelihood of success; that subdivision and sale would cause irreparable loss not compensable in damages; and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs. The court granted the temporary injunction over all the listed parcels, with costs in the cause. The suit proceeds to full hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success

Holding

The applicants demonstrated title to the suit properties, establishing a prima facie case

Reasoning

The court found the applicants held Certificates of Title issued on 10th July 1997 and had been registered proprietors for 26 years, evidenced by official searches. Under Sections 24(a) and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, registration vests absolute and indefeasible ownership. The respondents' competing claim rests only on a members register, which does not displace registered title at this interlocutory stage.

02

Whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages

Holding

Irreparable loss was demonstrated because subdivision and sale would defeat any award of damages

Reasoning

The court reasoned that if the suit property is occupied, subdivided and sold to third parties, any subsequent award of damages would be illusory because the property would already have been disposed of. Loss of registered land through such disposal cannot adequately be compensated in damages at a later date.

03

Where the balance of convenience lies

Holding

The balance of convenience favours the plaintiffs, as the defendants can be compensated in damages if they ultimately succeed

Reasoning

The court weighed the prejudice to each side. The plaintiffs would suffer inconvenience and potential loss of the land if it were sold before trial, whereas the defendants, if they succeed despite the injunction, retain a remedy in damages. Preserving the status quo by injunction therefore best protects both parties' potential rights.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Registration of a person as proprietor of land vests absolute ownership of that land in that person
  • A Certificate of Title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud or misrepresentation or where acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of the suit forbidding the Respondents, their servants, employees and/or agents from advertising for sale, offering for sale, selling, transferring, sub-dividing and/or registering any subdivision over Miti Mingi/Mbaruk Block 8/1354, 8/1353, 8/1356, 8/1357, 8/1361, 8/1358, 8/1359 and 8/1360 (Kianjoya)
  2. 2.Costs herein be in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to grant interlocutory injunctions pending hearing and determination of the suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Macharia & another v Nine Sisters Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E017 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1646 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (application dated 10th January 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1646/eng@2024-03-14

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