Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELC 5831 (KLR)

Trompell v Titus (Environment and Land Case 124 of 2021 & Miscellaneous Case E003 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 5831 (KLR)

Environment & Land Court
30 July 2025
1,944 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 Kenyan court ordered a disputed Diani property sold at Kshs 26 million after preferring a government valuation over a private one.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kwale (Hon. Justice L.L Naikuni, delivered virtually on 30th July 2025) arises from execution of the court's judgment of 3rd February 2022, which declared the Plaintiff, Bernd Trompell, and the Defendant, Jessica Mwkalit Titus - former intimate partners who jointly acquired the suit property LR No. Kwale/Diani Complex/644 - registered proprietors in common, each entitled to 50% of its value upon valuation by the Government Land Valuer, Kwale. Disputes arose over two competing valuation reports: one by Wyco Valuers & Company (for the Defendant) and one by the County Land Valuation and Survey Department dated 28th May 2025 (for the Plaintiff). The court framed two issues: which valuation report should be affirmed as authoritative, and who should bear the costs of valuation and subsequent processes. The court affirmed the Government Valuation Report, valuing the property at Kshs. 26,000,000, finding it compliant with the original court order, impartial, recent and methodologically sound. The Defendant's objections on depreciation were rejected for lack of evidence, and a third valuation was declined as unnecessarily dilatory. On costs, the court applied the principle that costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, but found it equitable to share valuation and process costs equally as originally ordered. The court ordered sale of the property within ninety days with proceeds divided equally, granted the Plaintiff a 30-day option to buy out the Defendant's share, directed the Defendant to vacate within 30 days of completion failing which eviction under Section 152E of the Land Act may be sought, and ordered each party to bear their own costs of the ruling.

Key legal issues

#
01

Which of the competing valuation reports should be adopted for execution of the judgment

Holding

The Government Land Valuer's report dated 28th May 2025 was affirmed as the authoritative valuation at Kshs. 26,000,000

Reasoning

The 3rd February 2022 judgment mandated valuation by the Government Land Valuer, Kwale. The report was prepared by a qualified public officer, complied with the court order, used standard methodology, and was recent. The Defendant's privately commissioned report lacked impartiality and was not mandated by the original orders; the depreciation objection lacked evidential support and a third valuation would only delay execution.

p. 3
02

Who bears the costs of the valuation and subsequent processes

Holding

Costs of the valuation, sale or buyout borne equally, consistent with the original order; each party to bear their own costs of the ruling

Reasoning

Costs are at the court's discretion and follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the original judgment had ordered valuation costs to be shared equally, and the court found it equitable that the costs of valuation and subsequent processes be shared equally as initially ordered.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Costs follow the event and the successful party is typically entitled to costs unless there are compelling reasons to decide otherwise; the award of costs is at the discretion of the court
  • A valuation report prepared in compliance with a court order, by a qualified public officer, is to be preferred over a privately commissioned report for execution purposes

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Government Valuation Report dated 28th May 2025 affirmed as the authoritative valuation of the Suit Property for purposes of executing the Judgment of 3rd February 2022
  2. 2.Suit Property Kwale/Diani Complex/644 valued at Kshs. 26,000,000/= for equitable division
  3. 3.Suit Property to be sold within ninety (90) days from the date of the ruling, proceeds divided equally (50% each) between the parties
  4. 4.Plaintiff/Decree Holder at liberty to buy out the Defendant's 50% share at the valued amount within 30 days
  5. 5.Costs of the sale or buyout process, including incidental expenses, borne equally by the parties
  6. 6.Defendant to vacate the Suit Property within 30 days of completion of the sale or buyout, failing which eviction may be sought under Section 152E of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012
  7. 7.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction; execution of the court's own judgment of 3rd February 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trompell v Titus (Environment and Land Case 124 of 2021 & Miscellaneous Case E003 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 5831 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5831/eng@2025-07-30

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