Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Suit (application dated 4/12/24) — Land Reference Nairobi/Block 110/360, Thome Estate· [2025] KEELC 1257 (KLR)

Rama v Roria & another (Land Case E505 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1257 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 March 2025
JKJ G Kemei
2,108 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

#

A Nairobi landowner who bought a property at auction could not evict the family living there through a quick court application — she must wait for a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Anna Ngiana Rama, moved the Environment and Land Court by application dated 4/12/24 under Section 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking leave to enter upon and repossess Land Reference Nairobi/Block 110/360 in Thome Estate, with the costs of such entry borne by the 1st Defendant. She relied on her purchase of the property at a public auction on 19/12/13 arising from Nairobi CMCC No. 5 of 2013 (City Council of Nairobi v Karanja Roria), her subsequent Vesting Order, Certificate of Title issued on 18/7/24, and the 1st Defendant's alleged obstruction of her access by deploying watchmen from 29/11/24. The 1st Defendant, Grace Roria, opposed through a replying affidavit, contending she and her family have occupied the property since 2000, built a home and farmed it, and that the root of the Plaintiff's title was fatally flawed because the auction originated from a suit filed against her grandfather Karanja Roria after his death in December 2002, without notice to his estate, rendering the proceedings void. The 2nd Defendant filed no response. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. It held that the orders sought mirrored the plaint and would amount to granting a permanent injunction and eviction summarily without a hearing, contrary to Articles 25 and 50(1) of the Constitution and the natural justice principle, and without proof of special circumstances justifying final relief at the interlocutory stage. Noting the plaintiff had chosen the statutory route of filing a suit for eviction under Sections 152B, 152E and 152F of the Land Laws (Amendment) Act, the court directed the matter to trial. Applying Pinnacle Projects Ltd and James Kanyita Nderitu, the application was dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent on 6 March 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant was entitled to leave to re-enter and repossess the suit property at the interlocutory stage

Holding

No — the orders sought mirrored the substantive plaint and would effectively evict the 1st Defendant unheard

Reasoning

The court noted the application sought the same relief as the plaint, namely repossession and eviction. Granting it would amount to a permanent injunction/eviction granted summarily without trial, violating the fair hearing guarantee. Eviction of persons in occupation must follow a full suit where both parties give evidence; the plaintiff chose that route by filing suit, so the matter must proceed to trial.

p. 4
02

Effect of the alleged illegality in the root of the applicant's title (suit filed against a deceased person)

Holding

The contention was noted but the court did not determine it at this interlocutory stage; the matter was left for trial

Reasoning

The 1st Defendant argued that CMCC No. 5 of 2013 was instituted against Karanja Roria after his death in December 2002, rendering the judgment and subsequent auction void. The court did not rule on title validity, holding instead that evidence must be taken at trial to determine the parties' proprietary rights.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court will not grant final relief (eviction/repossession) through an interlocutory application absent special circumstances, as that would deny the occupier a fair hearing
  • Eviction of a person in occupation of land must follow a suit in which both owner and occupier are heard
  • The right to fair hearing is non-derogable and a party cannot be condemned unheard

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4/12/24 was declared devoid of merit and dismissed
  2. 2.Costs awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3(a) and Section 63
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40, Rule 1(a)
  • Rating Act, Cap. 267 Laws of KenyaSection 20(2)
  • Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 28 of 2016Sections 152B, 152E and 152F
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 25 and 50(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Pinnacle Projects Limited vs. Presbyterian Church of East Africa, Ngong Parish & another
    [2018] eKLR
  • James Kanyita Nderitu –vs- Maries Philotas Ghika & Another
    [2016] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Civil Procedure Act (Section 3A and 63) and Order 40 Rule 1(a) Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 25 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rama v Roria & another (Land Case E505 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Suit (application dated 4/12/24) — Land Reference Nairobi/Block 110/360, Thome Estate. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1257/eng@2025-03-06

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