Macharia & another v County Surveyor, Murang’a County & another (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 301 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Murang'a ruled that an allotment letter for a kiosk does not prove land ownership, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs against the appellants.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellants established proprietary rights over Plot UNS 548 Mukuyu on a balance of probabilities
The trial court correctly found the Appellants did not own or possess the suit property; the allotment letter related to a kiosk/canteen and the payments made were ground rent, not rates.
The Court examined the allotment letter dated October 1992 signed by the Town Clerk and found its subject heading was for allocation of a kiosk/canteen, incapable of creating a leasehold. The receipts produced (CWM-3) were for ground rent, not rates. Under sections 24-26 of the Land Registration Act and sections 107-112 of the Evidence Act, only a registered proprietor enjoys indefeasible title, which the 1st Appellant failed to demonstrate.
Whether the first appellate court may interfere with the trial court's findings
No; the trial court's judgment was based on a proper and sound reading of the applicable law and the appellate court found no reason to disturb it.
Relying on Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co., Mbogo & Another v Shah and Mohamed Athman Kombo v Maua Mohamed, the Court reiterated its duty to re-evaluate evidence but also to defer to the trial court's discretion unless it misdirected itself. Having re-evaluated the documentary evidence, the Court agreed with the trial court's findings on ownership, possession, and failure to prove the case on a balance of probabilities.
Costs of the appeal
Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the Respondents, as successful litigants, were awarded costs.
Citing section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the decision in Party of Independent Candidate of Kenya & another v Mutula Kilonzo & 2 others [2013] eKLR, the Court held that costs are awarded to the successful litigant. Having dismissed the appeal, the Respondents were entitled to costs of both the appeal and the suit, payable jointly and severally by the Appellants.
Legal principles established
#- An allotment letter for a kiosk/canteen is incapable of creating a leasehold interest in land, and the protections of sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act attach only to registered proprietors.
- A first appellate court must reconsider, re-evaluate and re-assess the evidence and reach its own conclusions while making allowance for having neither seen nor heard the witnesses.
Court orders
#- 1.The instant Appeal is found not merited and is dismissed entirely.
- 2.The judgment of the trial Court dated 7th September 2023 is upheld.
- 3.Costs of the appeal and of the suit before the trial court are awarded to the Respondents, to be met by the 1st and 2nd Appellants jointly and severally.
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Murang'a (trial court)
- Murang'a CM ELC Case No. E081 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 65(b) of the Civil Procedure Act (first appeal from an original decree of a subordinate court on a question of law or fact)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Macharia & another v County Surveyor, Murang’a County & another (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 301 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Murang'a ELC Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 6th October 2023, filed 20th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/301/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.