Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case of Mombasa (further amended plaint dated 9th December 2021) — number not stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 8619 (KLR)

Sanghani & 4 others v Kenya National Highways Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 41 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 8619 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 December 2025
SKS. M. Kibunja
4,717 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Mombasa Environment and Land Court ruled that Kenya's roads authority cannot demolish a wall on land it claimed, because the government never completed acquiring the land over 40 years ago.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, registered leasehold proprietors of L.R MN/V/1817, sued after the 1st defendant (the national roads authority) issued a notice of intended demolition of their boundary wall and gate on the ground that the property encroached on the A109 road reserve, allegedly having been compulsorily acquired in 1969. The plaintiffs sought declarations that their wall and gate fall within the deed plan boundaries, that there is no encroachment, that the demolition notice is illegal, a permanent injunction, and in the alternative compensation. The 1st defendant maintained that the parent parcel MN/82/2/V was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in 1969 and could not be privately transferred. The court framed four issues: whether the property was compulsorily acquired, whether the 4th defendant passed good title, what prayers the plaintiffs were entitled to, and costs. Relying on the certificate of search, the grant, DW1's admissions and the absence of any register entry recording acquisition, the court held that although acquisition proceedings were commenced, they were never perfected by taking possession; the notice of possession did not even refer to the suit property. Applying section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, the government lost any acquisition rights after 1982, and its predecessor was guilty of laches. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant only: three declarations, a permanent injunction, and costs against the 1st defendant. The claims against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants failed, and the alternative monetary prayers were not pursued to award.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit property had been compulsorily acquired

Holding

Acquisition was commenced but never perfected; nothing on the register showed compulsory acquisition and possession was never taken

Reasoning

The court examined the gazette notices, compensation agreement and notice of possession. The notice of possession did not refer to the suit property, which did not exist at the time; no evidence of payment of compensation or surrender of title was produced. The Land Registrar was not called as a witness. The court concluded the acquisition was not completed due to the indolence of the then Minister and the 1st defendant's predecessor.

p. 6
02

Whether the government's claim over the land is statute-barred

Holding

Yes; under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act the government lost any acquisition rights after 1982 (12 years from the 1970 notice of possession)

Reasoning

The court perused the Limitation of Actions Act and the Public Authorities Act and found no provision exempting government from the 12-year limitation for recovery of land. Time ran from the 1970 notice of possession, which did not even identify the suit property. Further, the 1st defendant's own witness admitted laches by its predecessor between 1969 and 2015.

p. 7
03

Whether the 4th defendant passed good title

Holding

Impliedly yes; the 4th defendant had good title under section 23 of the Registration of Titles Act as innocent purchaser and the plaintiffs' claim against it failed

Reasoning

The 4th defendant purchased from Shreeji Transporters Limited in 1990, paid rates and rent, and sold to the plaintiffs in 2008. Both claimed to be innocent purchasers for value. Since compulsory acquisition was never perfected, the 4th defendant's title stood and the plaintiffs' claim against it failed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A compulsory acquisition of land is not complete until possession is taken or asserted; commencement of the process alone does not vest the land in the State.
  • The State enjoys no exemption from the 12-year limitation period under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act for recovery of land.
  • A party alleging compulsory acquisition bears the burden of proving it, and the presumption of regularity applies absent rebuttal.
  • Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the boundary wall and gate erected by the plaintiffs on L.R No. MN/V/1817 fall within the dimensions, abuttals and boundaries as delineated on deed plan number 207770 dated 23rd August 1996 issued by the Director of Surveys
  2. 2.Declaration that the boundary wall and gate erected by the plaintiffs on L.R No. MN/V/1817 do not encroach onto the A109 road reserve
  3. 3.Declaration that the 1st defendant's notice of intended demolition dated 20th January 2015 is illegal, null and void
  4. 4.Permanent injunction against the 1st Defendant, its servants, employees, officers and/or agents from entering, using, occupying or interfering with the plaintiffs' quiet and peaceful possession of L.R No. MN/V/1817, including from demolishing the boundary wall and gate or any other structure on the suit property
  5. 5.The 1st defendant to bear the costs of the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Acquisition Actsections 6(2), 9(1)(a), 17, 38(a)
  • Land Registration Actsection 35(3)
  • Limitation of Actions Actsections 4(1) & (2), 7
  • Registration of Titles Act (repealed)section 23
  • Land Actsections 120-122
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 27
  • Public Authorities Actnot specified

Cases cited (3)

  • Patrick Musimba versus National Land Commission & 4 Others
    [2016] KEHC 5956 (KLR)
  • Chief Land Registrar & 4 others versus Nathan Tirop Koech & 4 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Teresia Kamene Kingoo versus Harun Edward Mwangi
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution; ELC Act) — not expressly cited in the extract

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sanghani & 4 others v Kenya National Highways Authority & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 41 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 8619 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of Mombasa (further amended plaint dated 9th December 2021) — number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8619/eng@2025-12-10

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