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 Case of Mombasa (number not stated in judgment)· [2025] KEELC 5106 (KLR)

Mandal & another (Suing as the Administrators/Personal Representatives and on behalf of the estate of Rajinder Kumar Mandal) v Bakran; Mandal & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 172 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5106 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 July 2025
SKS. M. Kibunja
3,067 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court threw out a family's land claim after finding their title register was fraudulently created, ordering its cancellation and confirming the owner could evict them as tenants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of the late Rajinder Kumar Mandal, sued the defendant seeking a declaration of entitlement to peaceful occupation of Mombasa/Block X/parcel 254A, a permanent injunction against eviction, and costs. They claimed the deceased held a 99-year leasehold from 1951 and had diligently paid ground rent, but were served with a vacate notice and warrants of attachment claiming Kshs.1,141,000 in September 2019. The defendant denied the plaintiffs were registered lessees, asserting he owned Mombasa/Block X/254 freehold, that the plaintiffs were periodic tenants in breach (including unpaid county rates of Kshs.1,470,247), and that the plaintiffs had fraudulently sought to convert the property to freehold under parcel number 254A. Four interested parties entered appearance but did not participate. The court framed five issues and found that parcels 254 and 254A refer to the same plot; that the white card register for 254A was fraudulently altered, with a different lessor's name inserted without countersigning by the Land Registrar; and that no lease existed between the parties - the defendant, having bought the property while the plaintiffs occupied it and accepted their rent, was estopped from denying they were his tenants. Applying MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd, the fraudulently created register entries were nullities. The defendant was held entitled to issue eviction notices to tenants in rates arrears. The suit was dismissed with costs, and the Land Registrar directed to cancel the white card register for parcel 254A forthwith.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether parcels Mombasa/Block X/254A and Mombasa/Block X/254 are the same property

Holding

They refer to the same plot on the ground; parcel 254A was created fraudulently by tampering with the white card register without countersigning by the Land Registrar.

Reasoning

PW1 based his claim on 254A while DW1 owned 254; neither disputed the other's title over their respective numbers. The indenture of lease produced related to parcel 254. Testimony established both numbers described the same plot. The white card register for 254A showed cancellation and insertion of a different lessor's name without countersigning, evidencing fraud.

p. 4
02

Whether there was a lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant

Holding

No registered lease existed between them; the plaintiffs were periodic tenants, and the fraudulently created entries were a nullity.

Reasoning

The true lessors of parcel 254 were Mohamedali Cassam Satchu and Abdulrasul Satchu. The defendant bought the freehold and accepted rent from plaintiffs on the land, so he is estopped from denying they are his tenants. The parcel 254A register being fraudulently created, all entries in it were nullities, applying MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd.

p. 5
03

Whether the defendant followed due process before issuing the eviction notice

Holding

Since plaintiffs were tenants in rates arrears, the defendant as owner was entitled to issue the notices he did through his estate agent.

Reasoning

Having found the plaintiffs were tenants who admitted an obligation to pay rates but were in arrears, the court held it was in order for the undoubted owner to issue notices through his estate agent, so the eviction demand was not unlawful.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A void act is a nullity requiring no court order to set aside, and every proceeding founded on it is equally bad
  • Costs follow the event unless there is good reason to order otherwise
  • A party who has accepted benefits under an arrangement is estopped from denying the relationship it created

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs.
  2. 2.The Land Registrar is directed to cancel the white card register for Mombasa/Block X/254A forthwith.
  3. 3.The Deputy Registrar is directed to ensure a copy of the judgment is served upon the Mombasa County Land Registrar for further necessary action.
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13, Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mandal & another (Suing as the Administrators/Personal Representatives and on behalf of the estate of Rajinder Kumar Mandal) v Bakran; Mandal & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case 172 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of Mombasa (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5106/eng@2025-07-09

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