Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedKSM HCCC No. 166 of 2011 (transferred to the Environment and Land Court)· [2025] KEELC 1098 (KLR)

Mayfair Holdings Limited v Ondu & another (Sued in their capacity as Chairman and Secretary respectively of Kisumu East West Youths) (Environment & Land Case 302 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 1098 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 March 2025
EAE. Asati
1,650 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

#

A Kisumu court confirmed that landowners can permanently stop neighbours or groups from blocking service lanes bordering their property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued George Ondu and Austin Abuya Osinde, sued as Chairman and Secretary of Kisumu East And West Youth, in a suit originally filed in the High Court as KSM HCCC No. 166 of 2011 and transferred to the Environment and Land Court. The Plaintiff, registered leasehold owner of Kisumu Municipality Block 7/214, claimed that in December 2010 the Defendants, allocated an adjacent plot for publicly funded toilets, destroyed its structures and hoarding, erected kiosks on and blocked the service lane, rendering its premises inaccessible. It sought a permanent injunction, costs and any other relief. The Defendants denied the claim, asserting they held a temporary occupation licence from the Municipal Council of Kisumu with approved plans, and DW1 claimed they had cleared the service lane. Plaintiff's witnesses proved the certificate of lease, and a Land Surveyor testified and produced a report confirming the 3-metre service lane remained blocked except around the back door. DW1 conceded on cross-examination that only part of the lane had been cleared and other kiosks remained. In submissions the Plaintiff relied on sections 24(b) and 28 of the Land Registration Act and section 152A of the Land Act; the Defendants filed no submissions. The court framed a sole issue: whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. It found ownership undisputed, held the registered owner's exclusive enjoyment is protected by section 24 of the Land Registration Act and article 40 of the Constitution, noted the Municipal Council's letter that service lanes must be kept clear for access, and found the claim proved on a balance of probabilities. Judgment was entered as prayed with a permanent injunction and costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff, as registered owner of Kisumu Municipality Block 7/214, was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining obstruction of the service lane

Holding

Yes. The Plaintiff proved ownership by certificate of lease and proved on a balance of probabilities that the Defendants had erected kiosks blocking the service lane. Judgment was entered as prayed.

Reasoning

The court found no dispute that the Plaintiff was the registered owner, holding the certificate of lease dated 7th November 2002. Under section 24 of the Land Registration Act a registered owner is entitled to exclusive enjoyment of the land, and the right is protected by article 40 of the Constitution. The Defendants' defence admitted kiosks had been erected on the service lane; DW1 conceded on cross-examination that only part of the lane had been cleared, with other kiosks remaining. The Land Surveyor's report confirmed the lane had not been cleared except around the back door. A letter from the Municipal Council of Kisumu stated service lanes must remain open for access and no kiosks should be built thereon. On these findings the claim was proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered owner of land is entitled to exclusive enjoyment of the land under section 24 of the Land Registration Act
  • Service lanes are meant for access and no kiosks may be built on them so as to bar access

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, representatives, assigns or any other person acting through their directions from blocking the service lane or in any other way interfering with the Plaintifi's land parcel No. Kisumu Municipality Block7/214
  2. 2.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSection 24(b)
  • Land ActSection 152A
  • Land Registration ActSection 28
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 40
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over land disputes vested in the Environment and Land Court; suit transferred from the High Court for hearing and disposal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mayfair Holdings Limited v Ondu & another (Sued in their capacity as Chairman and Secretary respectively of Kisumu East West Youths) (Environment & Land Case 302 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 1098 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). KSM HCCC No. 166 of 2011 (transferred to the Environment and Land Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1098/eng@2025-03-06

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