Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELC 6948 (KLR)

Macharia & 3 others v County Government of Kajiado (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 624 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 6948 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 October 2024
1,798 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kajiado's county government must pay six Ngong landowners for demolishing their property after a court confirmed their titles were valid all along.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Six plaintiffs sued the County Government of Kajiado claiming they lawfully purchased six parcels in Ngong Township (Ngong/Township/Block 2/522, 861, 487, B, G and 888) from prior allottees, built commercial structures with the approval of the County Council of Olkejuado, and paid rates to the defendant. They complained that after a purported revocation of their titles by Gazette Notice on 26/11/2010 (which the High Court quashed in Judicial Review No. 129 of 2011 by a ruling dated 31/10/2012, unappealed), the defendant from 26/8/2016 deposited soil and debris on their land blocking access, and sought declarations of lawful ownership and trespass, mandatory and permanent injunctions, and damages assessed at Kshs. 120,865,000. The defendant denied the claim, asserting the land was public land reserved for a bus park and market, that allocations were void ab initio, that no approvals existed, and that the claim was time barred. The court framed five issues and held that the land became private land upon alienation by the defendant's predecessor; the certificates of lease, searches and allotment letters were unrebutted prima facie proof of ownership under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act; the defendant was estopped under Section 120 of the Evidence Act from denying title, having accepted rates and having sold plots through its own officials; and the Gazette Notice had no legal effect having been quashed. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs in terms of prayers (a), (b), (e), (f) and (h); the injunction prayers were refused as the structures had been demolished and the land put to different use.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit land was private or public land

Holding

The suit land became private land upon alienation by the defendant's predecessor, and the plaintiffs lawfully acquired it

Reasoning

The court found certificates of lease, official searches, letters of allotment and approved transfers proved lawful acquisition. The defendant, beyond alleging invalidity, called no rebuttal evidence; its only witness, the County Surveyor, spoke solely to a resurvey and said nothing about ownership. The title documents were thus unrebutted prima facie proof of absolute ownership under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act.

p. 4
02

Whether the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiffs' ownership

Holding

The defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiffs' ownership

Reasoning

The defendant received rates payments from the plaintiffs, and judicial notice was taken that A.M. Leina (secretary of the plots allocation committee) and Daniel Ole Muyaa (chairman of Kajiado County Council) sold some plots to the 1st and 4th plaintiffs. A purchaser would be excused any suspicion buying from such officials. The general estoppel rule under Section 120 of the Evidence Act binds the defendant to its predecessors' acts.

p. 4
03

Whether Gazette Notice Vol. CXII-No. 124 revoking title had legal effect

Holding

The Gazette Notice has no legal effect because it was quashed in Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2011 and no appeal was preferred

Reasoning

The High Court had ruled in favour of the plaintiffs' judicial review application on 31/10/2012 quashing the revocation. The defendant's witness admitted under cross-examination he was unaware of any appeal, and none was pleaded. The quashed revocation therefore never attained legal validity.

p. 4
04

Which orders have the plaintiffs proved

Holding

Judgment entered in terms of prayers (a), (b), (e), (f) and (h); injunction prayers unavailable as the structures were demolished and the land put to different use

Reasoning

Although the plaintiffs proved their claim on a balance of probabilities, the injunction and quiet possession prayers could not issue because the property had been demolished and the land converted to another use. The alternative compensatory damages prayers remained available and were granted.

Legal principles established

#
  • Land alienated by a local authority becomes private land, and certificates of lease, official searches and letters of allotment are prima facie evidence of ownership under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act
  • A public body is estopped from denying title where it accepted rates and where land was purchased from its officials, binding it to the acts of its predecessors

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant in terms of prayers (a), (b), (e), (f) and (h) of the amended plaint dated 23/10/2018
  2. 2.Declaration that the plaintiffs lawfully acquired the suit property and are the lawful owners or allottees entitled to quiet and vacant possession (prayer a)
  3. 3.Declaration that the defendant's acts of forcefully possessing the suit parcels amount to trespass and conversion (prayer b)
  4. 4.Compensatory damages in the alternative assessed amounts (prayer f)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over a claim relating to land; no specific constitutional or statutory provision invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Macharia & 3 others v County Government of Kajiado (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 624 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 6948 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6948/eng@2024-10-24

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