Giraffe View Estate Limited v Jemeau & 5 others; Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E129 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1341 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled a title to land set aside for public use, confirming that public utility plots cannot be privately allocated and fraudulently obtained titles get no protection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether LR No 2250/71 is public land surrendered by the 3rd defendant
The court held the suit land was public land, having been surrendered by the 3rd defendant during the subdivision of the mother parcel 2250/8, as evidenced by the instrument of surrender and the register entry of December 16, 1993.
Pw1, DW1 and DW2 gave consistent evidence of the surrender upon subdivision of the mother title in 1993/1994, with the register entry recording surrender to the Government of the Republic of Kenya on December 16, 1993. The prior judicial review decision of May 28, 2020, which found the parcels to be public property, had not been set aside. The 1st defendant himself admitted in cross-examination that the land had been transferred to the government in 1994.
Whether the suit land reverted to the 3rd defendant after the surrender
The court held the land could not revert; there was no evidence of reversion and the letter of May 2, 2013 authorizing titling cited no enabling law.
The surrendered land was alienated (not unalienated government land), so it was not available for reallocation to the 3rd defendant. The letter of May 2, 2013 from the ministry of lands did not indicate under which law the titling process was permitted, and no evidence was tendered on how the process culminating in the issuance of title was conducted. Reliance was placed on ex-parte Associated Steel, Ngimu Farm and Dorcas Atieno Rajoru for the principle that surrendered public utility plots retain no reversionary interest in the surrenderee.
Validity of the sale agreement and title obtained by the 1st and 2nd defendants
The power of attorney under which the 1st defendant purported to act was void because the alleged donor, Frank Howet, died in 2013, eight years before the 2021 agreement; the title was unlawful, illegal and unprocedural.
The 1st defendant claimed to act as donee of a power of attorney from Frank Howet, who died on May 15, 2013, yet the sale agreement was dated January 15, 2021. Citing Meru & 3 others v Meru, the court noted a power of attorney is extinguished on the donor's death. Further, the IR number on the defendants' title corresponded to a different parcel (LR 5908/812). The title therefore fell outside protection under Article 40(6) of the Constitution.
Whether the title of the 1st and 2nd defendants is protected by indefeasibility
The court held the title was not protected, since certificates of title acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme are not indefeasible under Article 40(6).
While a certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership, that protection excludes titles acquired fraudulently or through a corrupt scheme. Article 40(6) withdraws protection from unlawfully acquired property. The court adopted Chemey Investment and the Waa Ship Garbage Collector passage quoted by Maraga, J, that courts should nullify titles of land grabbers, and concluded the title must be nullified.
Legal principles established
#- Land surrendered as a public utility pursuant to a subdivision approval is alienated public land and cannot revert to the surrenderee or be allocated to private persons
- A power of attorney is extinguished upon the death of the donor
- Indefeasibility of title does not protect titles acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Grant, Transfer and/or disposition of public land LR No 2250/71 to the 1st defendant was illegal, unlawful, unprocedural, fraudulent and corrupt, hence a nullity and void ab initio
- 2.Cancellation of the title to parcel LR No 2250/71 in the names of the 1st and 2nd defendants
- 3.Direction to the 6th defendant (Attorney General) to register the title of parcel LR No 2250/71 in the name of the 4th defendant (Nairobi City County Government) as a public utility plot
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants from entering or in any way dealing with or interfering with LR No 2250/71
- 5.Order that the 1st defendant pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff, the 4th defendant and the Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Giraffe View Estate Limited v Jemeau & 5 others; Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E129 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1341 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Case number not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1341/eng@2025-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.