Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government of Kiambu; County Government of Kiambu (Plaintiff to the Counterclaim); Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment and Land Case 1191 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6376 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled irregularly acquired Thika land titles while ruling a county's demolition unlawful for lack of proper notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection on res sub-judice had merit
The objection failed as this 2013 suit was filed earlier than ELC Thika 280 of 2017; however the court declined to determine the 6th Plaintiff's ownership claim given parties absent from this suit.
Applying Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's test in KNCHR v AG, the sub-judice doctrine stays the later-filed suit. Since this suit (2013) preceded the Thika suit (2017), there was no bar to proceeding. But because the Thika suit involved parties not before this court, determining the 6th Plaintiff's ownership of LR 4953/2020 would prejudice those parties and violate fair hearing rights.
Whether the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietors with valid titles
Titles of the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs were invalid and could not be upheld; the 7th Plaintiff's title was upheld as his root was established; no determination was made on the 6th Plaintiff's property.
Under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act titles are prima facie indefeasible, but where impugned the burden shifts to the title holder. Tracing each chain, the court found no proof of acceptance of allotments, payment, due diligence or valuable consideration for the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs, and no traceable roots. The 7th Plaintiff produced allotment, payment and survey documentation establishing his root of title.
Whether the Defendant's demolition of the boundary walls was lawful
The demolition was unlawful because the statutory enforcement-notice procedure under Section 38 of the Physical Planning Act was not strictly followed; the omnibus notice was inadequate.
Although the Defendant conceded the demolition occurred, action against illegal construction requires strict compliance with Section 38 of the Physical Planning Act. An omnibus notice does not meet the stringent legal requirements. Even where ownership is disputed, owners are entitled to proper notification, and demolition without adequate notice contravenes due process.
Whether the counterclaim prayers should be allowed
The counterclaim succeeded; the impugned grants were declared null and void, ordered cancelled, registers closed, and a permanent injunction issued against the Defendants in the counterclaim.
Having found the titles of the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs failed the tests of lawful alienation and bona fide purchase, the court allowed the counterclaim substantially, issuing declarations of nullity, cancellation orders, closure of registers and an injunction. However, the final orders list fewer grant numbers and properties than the counterclaim pleaded, indicating only partial allowance.
Legal principles established
#- Where a registered proprietor's root title is under challenge, the proprietor must prove the legality of the acquisition beyond the instrument of title
- A registered proprietor acquires indefeasible title only if the allocation was legal, proper and regular
- Once a title is impugned, the burden shifts to the title holder to prove its validity
- Demolition of allegedly illegal construction must be undertaken in strict compliance with statutory enforcement-notice procedure
- Demolition must be carried out within the confines of the law including issuance of adequate notice, which is due process
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the impugned grants (I.R. 60555, 126463, 57997, 117392 and others dated 13th August 1993, 30th September 2010, 1st October 2010, 1st March 1993, 11th May 2009, 24th July 2009 and 14th September 2010) were obtained through fraud, error, misrepresentation or misdescription and are null and void ab initio
- 2.Cancellation of the said grants and direction to the Registrar of Titles to close the registers in respect thereof
- 3.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants in the Counterclaim from trespassing upon, advertising, offering for sale, leasing, mortgaging, charging, transferring or otherwise dealing with the said properties
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs for the suit and counterclaim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution, ELC Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government of Kiambu; County Government of Kiambu (Plaintiff to the Counterclaim); Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment and Land Case 1191 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 6376 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of 2013 (Thika). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6376/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.