Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment (application dated 5th September 2024)· [2024] KEELC 7150 (KLR)

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Chepkwe Holdings Limited & 2 others; Ministry of Land, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E041 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7150 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2024
NMN.A. MATHEKA
2,007 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's anti-corruption watchdog successfully froze a Mombasa land parcel it says was fraudulently allocated, blocking any sale, transfer or development until the trial ends.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (N.A. Matheka, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 5th September 2024 brought by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Plaintiff/Applicant, under the Civil Procedure Act, the Land Registration Act 2012, the Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. The Applicant sought interlocutory orders of inhibition restraining the 2nd Defendant/Respondent from alienating, transferring, charging, leasing, subdividing, disposing of or developing parcel Mombasa Municipality Block XXII/255 pending hearing of the suit. The Commission's investigator, Lydiah Ong'era, deponed that the 3rd Defendant had in 1996/1997 fraudulently allocated the unsurveyed plot to the 1st Defendant using a forged Part Development Plan; the property had been excised from land occupied by government houses built in 1928 and let to civil servants through the Interested Party; a lease issued in 2000; and the 1st Defendant transferred the property to the 2nd Defendant for Kshs 2,500,000 in October 2000, after which the 2nd Defendant demolished the government houses. Relying on authority on inhibition orders and maintenance of status quo, the court found that preserving the property carried the lower risk of injustice and granted an inhibition over the parcel until the suit is heard and determined, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an order of inhibition should issue to preserve the suit property pending trial

Holding

Inhibition granted over Mombasa Municipality Block XXII/255 pending hearing and determination of the suit

Reasoning

The court was satisfied the applicant had established that the allocation and transfer of the suit property, allegedly excised from land developed with public funds and occupied by government housing, was tainted by forgery and fraud. Guided by the principle of choosing the course carrying the lower risk of injustice, the court found preservation of the property through inhibition best served the cause of justice pending full trial.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An order of inhibition under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act bars the registered owner from registering any transaction over disputed property and preserves it pending trial, assessed on the balance of justice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of inhibition registered against the register of the land parcel Mombasa Municipality Block XXII/255 restricting registration of any disposition until the suit is heard and determined
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(c) and (e)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 40 Rules 7 & 4
  • Land Registration Act 2012Sections 68 & 69
  • Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2011Sections 3, 11(1)(i), 11(1)(j)
  • Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes ActSections 51, 53 & 56C
  • Registered Land Act, Cap 300 (repealed)
  • Government Land Act Cap 280 (repealed)
  • Registration of Titles Act (Cap 281) (repealed)
  • Gazette Notice No 5178 - Practice Directions on Proceedings in the Environment and Land CourtsParagraph 32

Cases cited (6)

  • Dorcas Muthoni & 2 others v Michael Ireri Ngari
    (2016) eKLR
  • Victoria Wangui Oganga Ogada v Mwangi Kihara & 2 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Joel Mugambi Mukira & 2 others (for and on behalf of Kimathi tenants welfare group) v County Government of Nyeri
    (2019) eKLR
  • Mugah v Kunga
    [1988] KLR 748
  • Joel Kipkurui Arap Koech v Alice Wambui Magandu & others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Films Rover International & others v Cannon Films Sales Ltd
    1986 3 ALL E.R 772
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A & 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 7 & 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Sections 68 & 69 of the Land Registration Act 2012; Sections 11(1)(i) of the Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2011; Sections 51, 53 & 56C of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Chepkwe Holdings Limited & 2 others; Ministry of Land, Public Works, Housing and Urban Development (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E041 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7150 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (application dated 5th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7150/eng@2024-10-30

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