Charu Investments v National social Security Fund Board of Trustees (Environment & Land Case 77 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6169 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A buyer who did not verify land ownership and built without county approvals lost his Kshs. 26 million claim against NSSF.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant (NSSF) owed the Plaintiff a duty of care in respect of the suit property
No duty of care was established: the Plaintiff failed to conduct due diligence establishing ownership, paid only Kshs. 1,000 to the Defendant (no seller-purchaser relationship), and the Defendant merely recorded details presented by the self-help group.
Ownership of most plots in Tassia did not mean ownership of the suit property. Had the Plaintiff verified ownership by documentary evidence, a proximate relationship might have arisen. The purchase price was paid to Mr. Ndolo, not NSSF, so no purchaser relationship with NSSF existed. Plot distribution stemmed from a negotiated settlement with squatters, with NSSF only entering details presented by Mr. Ndolo, so no record-keeping duty was breached.
Whether any duty of care was breached by failure to promptly inform the Plaintiff of the ownership defect
No breach was proved; the Defendant communicated by letter dated 3rd April 2012 sent to an address the Plaintiff himself provided.
Even assuming a duty to communicate relevant information existed, the Defendant sent the letter by post to the postal address given by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff denied receipt but acknowledged providing that address. Nothing established that the Defendant was required to telephone rather than write.
Whether the Plaintiff's unapproved development could ground an award of damages
No. Construction without county approvals is an illegality incapable of sustaining a damages claim.
Before constructing, approvals from the County Government are mandatory and can only be granted upon proof of ownership documents. The Plaintiff obtained no approvals from Nairobi City County; the development on the suit land was therefore illegal and could not give rise to the damages claimed.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving negligence (duty, breach and causation of injury) rests on the plaintiff
- A duty of care requires foreseeability, proximity and that it be fair, just and reasonable to impose it
- Developments erected without county government approval are an illegality and cannot ground a claim for damages
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction (negligence claim relating to land) before the Environment and Land Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charu Investments v National social Security Fund Board of Trustees (Environment & Land Case 77 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6169 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6169/eng@2024-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.