Florence Wairimu Kariuki & 6 others v City Council of Nairobi [2017] KEELC 514 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a land suit against Nairobi's city council because the plaintiffs waited 16 years to sue and could not prove the council breached their plot agreements.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiffs were shown their plots on the ground
- 2.Whether the defendant was in breach of any agreement with the plaintiffs
- 3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation from the defendant
- 4.Whether the suit is statute barred
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs were shown their plots on the ground
The court found the plaintiffs were shown their plots, most having been chased away by criminal gangs when they visited plots whose location they knew
The plaintiffs were workers of the defendant and received the plots as employees. Most admitted knowing their plots and being chased away by criminal gangs. The court reasoned that one cannot be chased from a plot whose location one does not know, and that the 2004 press advertisement and payments of arrears showed the plaintiffs knew their plots.
Whether the defendant breached its agreement with the plaintiffs
No breach was established; the defendant offered plots, the plaintiffs accepted in writing, made payments and the plots were given to them
The defendant offered plots which plaintiffs accepted in writing and paid the required sums. The plots remained in the allottees' names as at 2004 per the defendant's records and press advertisement. The valuation report and photographs showed a properly planned, built-up area with boundary markings.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation from the defendant
No compensation was payable because there was no evidence the defendant protected the criminal gangs or re-allocated the plots
The plots appeared to have been grabbed by an organized criminal gang. Without evidence that the defendant protected the gangs or re-allocated the plots, allowing compensation would set a bad precedent permitting claims against public bodies where criminals invade property. The burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove breach, which they failed to discharge.
Whether the suit is statute barred
The claim was statute barred, having been filed 16 years after the cause of action arose
The allotments were made in 1992 but the suit was filed in 2008, some 16 years later. The plaintiffs, having paid arrears following a 2004 advertisement showing them as allottees, could not then claim they had never been shown their plots; any claim for refund of premium or compensation was therefore time barred.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof at a formal proof hearing is the same as in any civil case - on a balance of probabilities, and only evidence of facts pleaded is admissible
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (environment and land disputes within Nairobi)
Relief refused
#Order of specific performance directing the defendant to identify beacons, issue beacon certificates and put plaintiffs in possession
Plaintiffs failed to prove they were not shown their plots; evidence showed they knew their plots and were chased away by criminal gangs
Refund of stand premium, annual rent, survey fees and other payments, and general damages for breach of contract
No breach by the defendant established and the claim was statute barred, filed 16 years after the cause of action arose
Reliance on valuation report produced for the first time in submissions
The valuation report was not part of the documents relied on in evidence and would not have been admitted
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I therefore find that the plaintiff have failed to prove their case which is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff and degree of proof is on balance of probabilities. In discharging the burden of proof, the only evidence to be adduced is evidence of the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue or facts relevant to the issue.
To allow compensation in the circumstances will be setting a bad precedent where criminals invade property and then the affected individuals seek compensation from public bodies in charge of allocating those plots.
There is therefore no basis upon which the plaintiffs can seek either a refund of their stand premium and annual rent or claim compensation on a claim which is statute barred having been filed 16 years after the cause of action arose.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the fourth plaintiff's husband was the allottee of plot No. 367 in the introduction but refers to plot 362 in the analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Florence Wairimu Kariuki & 6 others v City Council of Nairobi [2017] KEELC 514 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC No. 93 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/514/eng@2017-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.