Dhanji & another v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others (Civil Appeal 16 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 6001 (KLR)
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
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the sale in execution for recovery of rates
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
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.
Whether the Appellants acquired good title as bona fide purchasers for value
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
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.
Award of general damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/- for forceful eviction
The trial court's award was upheld as the eviction occurred without the statutory and international-law procedures governing forced evictions having been followed
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.
Costs of the appeal
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
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.
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.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.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.Costs of the appeal awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to be borne by the Appellants
- 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.