Selian Holdings Company Limited & 2 others v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (JKUAT) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 720 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 3790 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Plaintiff's suit was properly instituted without a board resolution
The suit was lawfully before the court; lack of a resolution was not fatal.
Order 4 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a verifying affidavit sworn by a duly authorised officer. Relying on Spire Bank Limited v Land Registrar, the court held the provision was not intended as a procedural technicality to strike out suits where no evidence showed the officer was unauthorised. The Defendant did not demonstrate that the person who signed the verifying affidavit and testified lacked authority, so the suit stood.
The nature of the access road from the Thika Super Highway to the Defendant's main gate
The road is a public access road outside the Defendant's Deed Plan, originating from portions surrendered to the Commissioner of Lands during subdivisions.
The Surveyor's Report and sub-division plans showed that a 15-metre-wide road (LR.No.21096/1) was surrendered to the Commissioner of Lands as an access road to the Defendant's main gate, later amalgamated with other surrendered portions into the 35.56/60-metre road. DW1 admitted the road was not in the Defendant's Deed Plan for LR.No.13094. The road is therefore public and outside the Defendant's property.
Whether the Plaintiffs' properties enjoyed direct access onto the public access road
The Plaintiffs' access was not directly from the public access road but through a 10-metre-wide internal access road.
The Deed Plans showed the Plaintiffs' properties were served by a 10-metre access road exiting the public road between LR.No.21096/87 and LR.No.21096/81 and running along their properties. A wide public road cannot be accessed directly by small individual properties lining it. PW1 admitted two access points existed and the boundary wall left space for two cars to pass, so the wall did not block access.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations and mandatory injunction regarding the boundary walls
The boundary walls erected on either side of the public access road were unlawful and a mandatory injunction issued for their removal within 180 days.
Both parties confirmed the walls were erected along the public access road. DW1 admitted the road was outside the Defendant's Deed Plan and produced no approval from the County Government of Kiambu or the National Government for erecting walls on the road reserve. Conversion of a public road to private use required compliance with the Physical Planning Act or other applicable law. The beautification project itself was beneficial, but the walls were illegal.
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs given partial success on both sides.
Although costs usually follow the event, the Plaintiffs succeeded only on the declaration and mandatory injunction relating to the walls, while the Defendant successfully defended the claims for blockage of access, damages, loss of use and mesne profits. In the circumstances, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Legal principles established
#- Where the plaintiff is a corporation, the absence of a resolution authorising the proceedings is not fatal where no evidence is produced demonstrating that the officer who signed and testified was unauthorised.
- Erecting boundary walls along either side of a public access road indirectly converts the public road into a private access road and is unlawful absent due process.
- A claim for loss of income can only succeed where a project is complete and actual income is being received.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the boundary walls on either side of the 35.56-meter-wide public access road from the Thika Super Highway to the main gate of the Defendant's entity is unlawful, illegal and amounts to a conversion of the public access to a private access road
- 2.An order of mandatory injunction against the Defendant directing the removal, demolition and/or clearing of the boundary walls only on either side of the 35.56-meter public access road from Thika Super Highway to the Defendant's main gate within 180 days from the date of the judgment
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the public access road and adjoining land parcels
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Selian Holdings Company Limited & 2 others v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (JKUAT) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 720 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 3790 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Amended Plaint dated 27th January 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3790/eng@2025-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.