[2014] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs and their ancestors had occupied the suit land since the 1930s and that there was no evidence of compensation for any alleged compulsory acquisition by the government. The subdivision of the original plot into two separate plots was done without the plaintiffs' knowledge or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2260 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohamed Kweya Ojuok; Plaintiff: Abisai Orina Omolo; Plaintiff: Nora Kombo Toloi; Plaintiff: Selfa Indakwa Anangwe; Plaintiff: Abubakar Abdi Biro; Plaintiff: Jacob Ratande Mukabana; Plaintiff: Tawakal Abdulrazak Burhan; Defendant: Mumias Municipality Council; Defendant: Kakamega County Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 31 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs. Subdivisions nullified. Land to revert to original plot and be registered in plaintiffs' names in trust for all inhabitants. Each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Compulsory Acquisition, Land Registration, Nullification of Title, Right to Property
- 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
Mohamed Kweya Ojuok
Plaintiff
Abisai Orina Omolo
Plaintiff
Nora Kombo Toloi
Plaintiff
Selfa Indakwa Anangwe
Plaintiff
Abubakar Abdi Biro
Plaintiff
Jacob Ratande Mukabana
Plaintiff
Tawakal Abdulrazak Burhan
Plaintiff
Mumias Municipality Council
Defendant
Kakamega County Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be recognized as the lawful owners of plot number SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/772.
- 2 Whether the subdivision of the original plot into SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/2363 and 2364 was lawful.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs were compensated for compulsory acquisition, if any.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs and their ancestors had occupied the suit land since the 1930s and that there was no evidence of compensation for any alleged compulsory acquisition by the government. The subdivision of the original plot into two separate plots was done without the plaintiffs' knowledge or consent. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities and were entitled to recognition as lawful owners. The court nullified the subdivisions, revoked the titles for the subdivided plots, and ordered that the land revert to its original plot number and be registered in the names of the plaintiffs in trust for themselves and the other...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs. Subdivisions nullified. Land to revert to original plot and be registered in plaintiffs' names in trust for all inhabitants. Each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- The subdivision of plot number SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/772 into plot numbers SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/2363 and 2364 is nullified.
- The titles for plot numbers SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/2363 and 2364 are revoked.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA
LAND & ENRIVONMENT NO: 31 OF 2012
1. MOHAMED KWEYA OJUOK
2. ABISAI ORINA OMOLO
3. NORA KOMBO TOLOI
4. SELFA INDAKWA ANANGWE ....................PLAINTIFFS
5. ABUBAKAR ABDI BIRO
6. JACOB RATANDE MUKABANA
7. TAWAKAL ABDULRAZAK BURHAN
VERSUS
MUMIAS MUNICPALITY COUNCIL...............................1ST RESPONDENT
KAKAMEGA COUNTY COUNCIL..................................2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiffs herein sued the two defendants seeking to be recognized as the owners of plot number SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/772 that was sub-divided into plot numbers SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/2363 and 2364. MOHAMED KWEYA OJUOK testified on behalf of all the other plaintiffs. It is the plaintiffs’ claim that they reside on the suit land. The land was allocated to them by the Nabongo, Chief Mumia in 1933 and their families have been living on the land since then.
The 1stplaintiff testified that when adjudication was done in 1967 the land was registered in the names of the Kakamega county council and was set aside for theNubian Estate. However, in 2002, the land was sub-divided into plot numbers2363and2364without their knowledge. It was alleged that the plaintiff’s were compensated but that allegation is not true.
According to the plaintiffs they live on the land and there is no one else who is claiming the land. They would like the land to revert to its original plot number772. They are poor people who depend on the land. They produced some letters from different Government offices.
The defendants herein were served but did not enter appearance or file defence. They were served with a hearing notice but did not attend court and the matter proceeded ex-parte. One of the letters produced by the plaintiffs is dated 21/8/2003 from the Western provincial physical planning officer. It is indicated in the letter that the Government compulsorily acquired the land from the plaintiffs but the manner of compensation had not been settled. Another letter dated 17/12/2002 from the Western Provincial Commissioner’s office indicate that there were 216 plots that were allocated to members of the public on 1stAugust 2000 at a ceremony presided over by the then Provincial Commissioner, Mr. Zachary Ogongo. I have also seen a letter written by the Mumias Division District officer indicating that the land was a Settlement area that was occupied by Arabs, Nubians and other people since 1936.
Given the evidence on record I do find that the plaintiff’s have been living on the suit land for quite some time. The plaintiffs are not seeking title by way of adverse possession. Article 40 of the Constitution Recognizes the right to own property. It is clear to me that the plaintiffs’ ancestors occupied the suit land since the 1930’s and their children, grandchildren and great grand children have also been occupying the land. It appears that the land was mainly occupied by people of Nubian and Arab origin. The plaintiffs would like to be recognized as the lawful owners of the land. If the land was compulsorily acquired by the Government, it is not clear what was the purpose of the acquisition. There is no proof of compensation.
From the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s have proved their case on a balance of probabilities. They live on the suit land and like any other Kenyans have a right to own property. I do grant the prayer that the sub-divisions of the original plotNo. SOUTH WANGA/EKERO/772into two plots be and is hereby nullified. The titles for plot numbersSOUTH WANGA/EKERO/2363and2364are hereby revoked and the land shall revert to Plot numberSOUTH WANGA/EKERO/772. I do further order that plot number772be registered in the names ofMOHAMED KWEYA OJOUK, ABISAI ORINA OMOLO, NORAH KOMBO TOLOIandABUBAKAR ABDI BIROwho shall hold in trust for their own benefit and for the benefit of all the 72 people and their families as per the list of 72 inhabitants filed in court on 11thDecember, 2012. The Deputy Registrar of Kakamega High Court is hereby directed to execute all the transfer and other relevant documents in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall meet their own costs.
Dated, delivered and signed at Kakamega this 16thday of October 2014
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE