Pink Properties Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 43 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3940 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed the National Land Commission cannot revoke a landowner's title without proving an illegal original allocation, protecting genuine buyers.
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 1st Defendant had jurisdiction to review the grant and disposition of the suit property which arose from a land adjudication process on trust land
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff is the legal and equitable proprietor of LR No. Chembe/Kibabamshe/272 and entitled to protection as a bonafide purchaser for value
- 3.Whether the 1st Defendant's decision in Gazette Notice No. 6866 dated 17th July 2017 vesting the suit property in the 3rd Defendant was illegal, made in bad faith and without jurisdiction
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the National Land Commission over land adjudication on trust land
The Commission had no mandate to review grants arising from a land adjudication process on trust land; its power under Section 14 NLC Act extends only to public land allocations and it should have downed its tools
The Gazette Notice itself acknowledged that the tenure system in Chembe Kibabamshe area is trust land, not Government land. The Commission's mandate under Article 68(c)(1) and Section 14 of the NLC Act is to examine procedures followed in allocating public land. Since the suit property resulted from an adjudication process over trust land, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to intervene, and could not rely on vaguely invoked 'public interest'.
Revocation of titles of subsequent allottees and bonafide purchasers
Even where revocation of the initial allottee's title is warranted, the Commission/Registrar lacks jurisdiction to revoke the title of a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of defect
Relying on Angote J in Republic v National Land Commission Ex-parte Helborn Properties Limited, the court held that any recommendation to revoke title applies only to the initial allottee. The plaintiff purchased from a chain of registered owners after due diligence and official search, and invested over Kshs.60,000,000 in construction; its title could not be revoked on the basis of the 3rd Defendant's claim.
Inconsistency and bad faith in the Commission's successive determinations
The Commission acted inconsistently: first finding Simon Patrick Hinzano the original allottee in its letter of 9th December 2015, then in 2017 directing vesting of the property in the 3rd Defendant as representative of a different 'first allottee', without jurisdiction
The court noted the Commission's Chairman had earlier found the property legally belonged to Simon Patrick Hinzano. Later, the Gazette Notice of 17th July 2017 directed the Chief Land Registrar to regularize the title to a different 'first allottee' and vest it in the 3rd Defendant. This inconsistency, coupled with lack of jurisdiction, rendered the determination unlawful and entitled the plaintiff to judicial protection.
Legal principles established
#- The National Land Commission's mandate under Article 68(c)(1) of the Constitution and Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act is to examine the legality of the procedure followed in the allocation of public land, and it may only recommend revocation of a grant upon a specific finding of illegality or irregularity in the first allocation
- Where the initial allottee of public land has transferred the land to a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of a defect in title, the Registrar does not have jurisdiction to revoke such a title (Section 14(7) of the National Land Commission Act)
- The National Land Commission has no jurisdiction to review documents emanating from a land adjudication process on trust land
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff as prayed in the Plaint, namely a declaration that the Plaintiff is the legal and equitable proprietor of LR No. Chembe/Kibabamshe/272
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from vesting the property to the 3rd Defendant or any other person, revoking the Plaintiff's title, entering, trespassing, taking possession, wasting, damaging or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of the suit property
- 3.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title to land; the plaintiff brought a fresh suit challenging the National Land Commission's determination under Section 14(5) of the National Land Commission Act
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.
Accordingly, I am persuaded that the Plaintifi has proved its case to the required standard and I allow the Plaintifi's suit as prayed with costs.
Having established that the suit property was a result of a land adjudication process arising from what was previously trust land, the 1st Defendant had no jurisdiction to review the documents that emanated from the adjudication process and should have downed its tools there and then.
for the 1st Defendant to recommend to the 2nd Defendant to revoke any title, there must be a specific finding that there was an illegality or irregularity in the first allocation of public land to individuals.
With respect, I did not think the 1st Defendant is clothed with the mandate to review grants and dispositions on the basis of what it termed “public interest.”
This Court was persuaded that the Plaintifi is indeed entitled to its protection under the law from the arbitrary and unlawful determinations of the 1st Defendant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the 1st Defendant's earlier finding that Simon Patrick Hinzano was the original allottee, but the later Gazette Notice describes the 'first allottee' as 'Samuel Ritho', a different person, and the relationship between these claims is not explained
The testimony states the official search was carried out on 25th May, 2021, which post-dates the 2011 purchase, an apparent chronological inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Pink Properties Limited v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 43 of 2018) [2022] KEELC 3940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3940/eng@2022-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.