[2019] KEELC 510 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff was the lawful allottee of the suit property, having been allocated the plot by the 1st Defendant and having made payments as required. The 1st Defendant's repossession and subsequent reallocation of the property to the 2nd Defendant was done without giving the Plaintiff notice or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 510 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Josphat Mailu Ndolo; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi; Defendant: Mary Asiyo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1295 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed; prayers (a), (b), and (c) of the plaint granted; costs awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Allocation of Public Land, Repossession Procedure, Legitimate Expectation, Notice Requirements
- 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
Josphat Mailu Ndolo
Plaintiff
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Mary Asiyo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Defendant lawfully repossessed the suit plot from the Plaintiff and reallocated it to the 2nd Defendant.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to notice prior to repossession of the suit property.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff's legitimate expectation in the suit property was violated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff was the lawful allottee of the suit property, having been allocated the plot by the 1st Defendant and having made payments as required. The 1st Defendant's repossession and subsequent reallocation of the property to the 2nd Defendant was done without giving the Plaintiff notice or an opportunity to regularise his arrears, contrary to established procedures and the Plaintiff's legitimate expectation. The court held that due process was not followed, and the Plaintiff's rights were violated. Consequently, the Plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought, including a declaration of ownership and costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed; prayers (a), (b), and (c) of the plaint granted; costs awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant.
Orders
- A declaration that plot number D5-36 Kayole belongs to the Plaintiff.
- The purported repossession and reallocation of the plot by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant is declared illegal, null and void.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC SUIT NO. 1295 OF 2013
JOSPHAT MAILU NDOLO....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI......................................1ST DEFNDANT
MARY ASIYO................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
1. The Plaintiff filed suit on 30/10/2013 seeking a declaration that plot number D5-36 Kayole (“the Suit Property”) belongs to him and that the purported repossession of this plot by the 1st Defendant and allocation to the 2nd Defendant was illegal. The Defendants were served but did not file any defence. The court entered interlocutory judgement for the Plaintiff on 22/5/2015. The 1st Defendant’s attempts to set aside the interlocutory judgement did not succeed.
2. The Plaintiff gave evidence. He was allocated suit plot by the 1st Defendant on or about March 1987 following an application he made to the 1st Defendant. He produced a copy of the 1st Defendant’s letter checked on 24/3/1987 together with the receipts as evidence of payments he made to the 1st Defendant on account of the plot. He also produced a copy of the booklet on payments for the Kayole Site and Service Scheme issued by the 1st Defendant under the scheme. The 1st Defendant issued a form to the Plaintiff dated 8/9/1987 confirming that he had received his building plans from the 1st Defendant’s Housing Development Department in respect of the Kayole Site and Service Scheme. He also produced documents from the 1st Defendant showing that he owned the suit plot.
3. The Plaintiff stated that he complied with the conditions of the allotment until 2008 when he was taken seriously ill and failed to make the monthly payments for the plot to the 1st Defendant. He visited the offices of the 1st Defendant in July 2008 with the intention of regularising his payments only to be informed that the Suit Property had been repossessed and allocated to another person. Later he learnt that the plot had been transferred to the 2nd Defendant on 29/3/2008. He visited the plot and found it was still vacant. He wrote a demand letter to the 1st Defendant on 14/7/2008 complaining about the repossession of his plot which did not elicit any response from the 1st Defendant. He produced the quotation prepared by Mwatati Construction Company in respect of the house he wished to develop on the Suit Property.
4. The Plaintiff maintained that he was not given any notice by the 1st Defendant before his plot was repossessed. He produced copies of the demand letters which the 1st Defendant sent to him on previous occasions when he fell into arrears on the monthly payments together with the receipts for settlement of the arrears.
5. The issue for determination is whether the 1st Defendant could repossess the suit plot from the Plaintiff and allocate it to the 2nd Defendant as it purported to do. The Plaintiff filed submissions which the court has considered. He submitted that he had a legitimate expectation that his interest in the Suit Property would be protected and that he would enjoy the benefits of the plot allotted to him by the 1st Defendant.
6. The Plaintiff proved that he was allocated the suit plot by the 1st Defendant and that he continued making monthly payments for the plot to the 1st Defendant. He proved that he would clear his outstanding arrears over time. The court agrees with the Plaintiff’s contention that the 1st Defendant could not have repossessed the suit land and purported to reallocate it to another party without giving him notice to settle the outstanding arrears. The 1st Defendant could not therefore have reallocated the suit plot to the 2nd Defendant without following due process.
7. The Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities and the court grants prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint dated 25/10/2013. The Plaintiff will have the costs of the suit to be borne by the 1st Defendant.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of November 2019
K.BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Ms. Esami holding brief for Kethi Kilonzo for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the Defendants
Mr. V. Owuor- Court Assistant