Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedAppeal from Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 421 of 2014 (appeal number not stated in the judgment)· [2024] KEELC 6001 (KLR)

Dhanji & another v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6001 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
18 September 2024
12,057 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~48 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that a property auction held without proper statutory notice is invalid, so the buyers kept no title and must pay damages and costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa from the judgment of Hon. Francis Kyambia, SPM, delivered on 12th June 2020 in Mombasa CMCC No. 421 of 2014. The suit originated as a claim by the County Government of Mombasa against Rodica (Robica) Malenya for rates arrears of Kshs. 149,813/- plus interest on Plot No. IMN/2496, Mombasa, which led to a default judgment and a public auction at which Hassan Mohamed Sheikh purchased the property and later transferred it to the Appellants. The Defendant counter-claimed that the sale and transfers were fraudulent and unlawful, and the trial court dismissed the claim, declared the sale and transfers null and void, cancelled the titles, reinstated the Defendant as owner, directed demolition of developments, and awarded Kshs. 5,000,000/- general damages for forceful eviction. The purchasers appealed. L.L. Naikuni, J, framing three issues, held as a first appellate court that the trial court properly found that no statutory notice or demand under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rating Act was proved served, that service by advertisement without fixing process on a conspicuous part of the property was unprocedural, that no return of service under Order 5 Rule 15 existed, and consequently no good title passed at the auction; the Appellants failed to establish bona fide purchaser status. The award for forceful eviction was also upheld, the court noting the statutory and international-law eviction procedures were not followed. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, the 1st Respondent bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the sale in execution for recovery of rates

Holding

The sale of the suit property in purported enforcement of payment of rates was invalid and unlawful because no statutory notice or demand under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rating Act was proved served, and there was no return of service under Order 5 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Reasoning

The Rating Act requires publication of at least 30 days' notice of rates payable (s.15), payment upon such notice (s.16), and a written demand within 14 days before proceedings (s.17). The 1st Respondent attached no evidence of service of the s.15 notice; no demand was proved served; and no return of service under Order 5 Rule 15 established proper service of summons. Advertising the sale in the dailies without fixing process on a conspicuous part of the property was unprocedural. The trial court's finding on this ground was therefore unimpeachable.

p. 19
02

Whether the Appellants acquired good title as bona fide purchasers for value

Holding

The Appellants did not acquire good title because the root of the title was tainted by an unlawful execution process and the property was transferred while prohibition/inhibition orders and pending proceedings existed

Reasoning

Relying on Katende v Haridar and Dina Management, a purchaser relying on the bona fide purchaser doctrine must prove a certificate of title, good faith, absence of knowledge of fraud, valuable consideration, and a vendor with apparent valid title. Since the entire process leading to the auction was irregular and the transfer occurred while prohibitory orders were in place and litigation was pending (lis pendens), the Appellants could not demonstrate acquisition free of irregularities and were bound by the outcome.

p. 5
03

Award of general damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/- for forceful eviction

Holding

The trial court's award was upheld as the eviction occurred without the statutory and international-law procedures governing forced evictions having been followed

Reasoning

Section 38 of the Land Act governs dispositions of interests in land, and Article 2(6) of the Constitution incorporates international law including the ICESCR, ICCPR and the Banjul Charter, which require consultation, adequate notice and humane procedures before forced evictions. The Appellants demonstrated no basis to interfere with the award; the statutory procedure was not followed and the 2nd Respondent was not given sufficient notice.

p. 22
04

Costs of the appeal

Holding

Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the unsuccessful Appellants bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents' costs while the 1st Respondent, which supported the appeal, bears its own costs

Reasoning

Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act confers a discretion that costs of and incidental to all suits follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. Having failed to establish its claim on appeal, the Appellants were properly ordered to pay the costs of the Respondents who opposed the appeal, while the supporting 1st Respondent was not entitled to costs.

p. 23

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses
  • Proper service of the statutory notice and demand under the Rating Act is a precondition to recovery of rates, and service by mere advertisement without fixing process on a conspicuous part of the suit property is unprocedural
  • Where proper service was not effected on the rateable owner, good title does not pass to a purchaser at an auction conducted pursuant to the resulting decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal filed through the Memorandum of Appeal dated 18th November, 2021 and the Record of Appeal dated 3rd May, 2023 is found to lack merit and is dismissed in its entirety with costs
  2. 2.The Court upholds the Judgment of the trial court delivered by Hon. F. Kyambia, Senior Principal Magistrate, in Mombasa CMCC No. 421 of 2014 on 12th June 2020
  3. 3.Costs of the appeal awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to be borne by the Appellants
  4. 4.The 1st Respondent shall bear its own costs
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Mombasa
Civil Suit No. 421 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, read with Sections 79B and 79G and Order 42 Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dhanji & another v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6001 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Appeal from Mombasa Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 421 of 2014 (appeal number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6001/eng@2024-09-18

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