[2019] KEELC 4453 (KLR)
The court found that while there was insufficient material to impeach the 2nd defendant's title to the suit land, the evidence established that the predecessor of the 3rd defendant had led the deceased to believe he would be allotted the land and had accepted payment of all requisite fees. This created a legitimate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 4453 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Geoffrey Manyara Wanguhu Githiomi; Plaintiff: Davis Kamau (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Davis Kamau Wanguhu, Deceased); Defendant: Badih Mike Sioyi; Defendant: Julia Muthoni Mwangi; Defendant: County Government of Nakuru
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 275 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Case / Addendum to Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs against the 3rd defendant for compensation for the value of the suit land, with interest and costs.
- Legal Topics
- Compensation for Land, Legitimate Expectation, Leasehold Title Dispute
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Geoffrey Manyara Wanguhu Githiomi
Plaintiff
Davis Kamau (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Davis Kamau Wanguhu, Deceased)
Plaintiff
Badih Mike Sioyi
Defendant
Julia Muthoni Mwangi
Defendant
County Government of Nakuru
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Case / Addendum to Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to ownership of Nakuru Municipality Block 15/314 or compensation for its value.
- 2 Whether the 3rd defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the value of the suit land due to legitimate expectation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there was insufficient material to impeach the 2nd defendant's title to the suit land, the evidence established that the predecessor of the 3rd defendant had led the deceased to believe he would be allotted the land and had accepted payment of all requisite fees. This created a legitimate expectation in favour of the deceased. Since the title could not be issued to the plaintiffs, the appropriate remedy was compensation for the value of the land. The court therefore entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the 3rd defendant for the value of the suit land as determined by the Government valuer, with interest from the date of the original judgment and costs.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the 3rd defendant for compensation for the value of the suit land, with interest and costs.
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs against the 3rd defendant for Kshs. 4,000,000.
- The amount to attract interest from 13 June 2018.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
ELC NO.275 OF 2016
GEOFFREY MANYARA WANGUHU GITHIOMI And
DAVIS KAMAU (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of
Davis Kamau Wanguhu (Deceased)...................................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
BADIH MIKE SIOYI..............................................1ST DEFENDANT
JULIA MUTHONI MWANGI...............................2ND DEFENDANT
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU.........3RD DEFENDANT
ADDENDUM TO THE JUDGMENT OF 13 JUNE 2018
1. In this suit, the plaintiffs claimed ownership of the land parcel Nakuru Municipality Block 15/314 which is a leasehold title from the predecessor of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs contended that the deceased whom they represent was the one entitled to the lease, but that instead, a leasehold title was prepared in the name of the 1st defendant who transferred the same to the 2nd defendant. I heard the case, and held that I had no material to impeach the title of the 2nd defendant. I however had evidence that the predecessor of the 3rd defendant did lead the deceased to believe that he had been allotted the suit land and that title would be issued to him. The deceased thus paid the stand premium and all other fees that a title holder would be required to pay. I held that the deceased held a legitimate expectation that he would be issued with a leasehold title which did not happen. I thus entered judgment for the plaintiffs for their alternative prayer for compensation for the value of the suit land as against the 3rd defendant.
2. I did not have the value of the suit land when I pronounced judgment and I directed that the land be valued by the Government valuer and a report be prepared. This was done, and I have with me the report dated 16 July 2018 prepared by the Government valuer. He has given the value of Kshs. 4,000,000/= as the current value of the suit land.
3. Given that position, I now make specific the judgment for the value of the suit land. I now enter judgment in favour of the plaintiffs as against the 3rd defendant for the amount of Kshs. 4,000,000/=. The same to attract interest from 13 June 2018, which is the date that judgment was pronounced. As ordered in the judgment the plaintiff is also awarded costs as against the 3rd defendant.
4. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 19TH day of February 2019.
JUSTICE MUNYAO SILA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAKURU
In presence of : -
Ms. Kinuthia holding brief for Mr. Mbiyu for the plaintiff
No appearance for the defendants.
Court Assistant :Nelima Janepher
JUSTICE MUNYAO SILA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAKURU