Scenic Court Limited & 2 others v Housing Finance Company Limited & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E062 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 27 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that property owners cannot demand back their original title documents once land has been subdivided into sectional units under Kenyan law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an agent of a disclosed principal can be sued alongside the principal
No - the suit against the 2nd respondent, who acted on the instructions of the 1st respondent as its advocate, was untenable and was dismissed
The letters of 6th September 2005 and 7th February 2006 demonstrated an advocate-client relationship between the respondents, i.e. a principal-agent relationship. Relying on Victor Mabachi & another v Nurtun Bates Limited, the court held that an agent of a disclosed principal cannot be sued. No cause of action could therefore survive against the 2nd respondent.
Whether the applicants were entitled to release of the original title documents
No - upon registration of sectional plans the mother titles are closed and individual unit titles opened under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Sectional Properties Act, Cap 286
The court adopted the reasoning in Skyview Properties Limited & another v Njoroge, which dealt with similar properties, holding that a developer who subdivides into units and issues long-term sub-leases is obligated to register sectional plans and surrender original titles for closure of the register and opening of separate registers per unit. Release of the original titles to the applicants was therefore legally impossible.
Whether the court could determine the 3rd applicant's title (LR 1870/V/217)
No - the property is the subject of pending proceedings in ELC No. 214 of 2011 which the applicants did not refute
The 1st respondent deposed that active proceedings concerning LR 1870/V/217 were ongoing in Caroline Waithera Kirumba & 3 Others v Susan Nyambura Wachira & 3 Others, and that it continued to hold the title pending conclusion of that suit. The applicants did not refute the existence of the suit or show it had been determined, so the court declined to pronounce itself on that property.
Whether issues raised for the first time in written submissions could be argued
No - issues not pleaded in the supporting affidavit and not introduced by supplementary affidavit could not form a basis for argument
The applicants raised in submissions matters such as the absence of valuation before the private treaty sales and allegations ignoring the principal-agent relationship, none of which were pleaded. The court held parties cannot introduce new issues at submissions stage, and that fraud requires cogent evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Where the principal is disclosed, the agent is not to be sued
- Once a property is developed into several units under the Sectional Properties Act, the mother title register is closed and separate registers opened for each unit, so the original title cannot be released to the former owner
- Fraud must be proved by cogent evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The originating summons dated 25th September, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.The claim/suit against the 2nd respondent is dismissed
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 37 Rules 4 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Scenic Court Limited & 2 others v Housing Finance Company Limited & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E062 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 27 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 25th September, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/27/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.