Steel Products [Kenya] Limited v Gichu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 54 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 580 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed a buyer's land claim because an uncommissioned affidavit sank the case and an allotment letter alone can never transfer land ownership in Kenya.
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 Plaintiff's suit is competent and valid on the face of the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, or otherwise
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated and proved legitimate rights to and interests over the suit property or otherwise
- 3.Whether the 1st Defendant has any ownership rights to and in respect of the suit property or otherwise
- 4.What reliefs, if any, ought to be granted
Key legal issues
#Competency of the suit for want of a commissioned verifying affidavit
The verifying affidavit was never commissioned and was struck out; the Plaint was left bare, rendering the entire suit incompetent, and no application to regularise was made.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act require every affidavit to be taken before a commissioner for oaths who states the place and date in the jurat and affixes his seal and signature. The verifying affidavit accompanying the Plaint bore no commissioning. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Konchellah v Sunkuli, the affidavit was void. With the affidavit expunged, the Plaint contravened Order 4 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and since the defect surfaced only at judgment stage with no application for leave to regularise, the suit was vitiated.
Whether the Plaintiff proved legitimate rights or interests over the suit property
The Plaintiff failed: its claim rested on a letter of allotment held by a vendor who never became registered proprietor, the allotment was subsequent to the 1st Defendant's allotment and lapsed before compliance, and it was not traceable in the County's records.
Applying Torino Enterprises, an allotment letter confers no transferable interest; the Plaintiff's purchase from Georgette Mumbua Musyoka was therefore incapable of vesting title, especially as no sale agreement in writing was produced despite the disposition-of-land requirements of Section 3 of the Law of Contract Act. The vendor's allotment postdated the 1st Defendant's allotment of 21st February 1992, attached to no unalienated land, and lapsed because payment was made outside the 30-day window. The County could not trace the letter in its records, and the Plaintiff failed to call a witness from the County to prove its genuineness.
Whether the 1st Defendant has ownership rights over the suit property
The 1st Defendant is the lawful and registered owner, having traced her allotment, lease, certificate of lease and payments to the County's records.
The 1st Defendant produced a letter of allotment dated 21st February 1992, a lease executed on 2nd February 2013 by the Mayor and Town Clerk of the then subsisting City Council of Nairobi, and a certificate of lease following registration in 2015. DW2, the County's witness, confirmed the allotment, lease and registration and that her documents were traceable to County records. Although a registered proprietor's root of title was under challenge, she went beyond the instrument and proved legality of acquisition as required by Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina.
Validity of the lease executed by the Mayor and Town Clerk in February 2013
The lease was lawfully executed because the City Council of Nairobi remained in existence until after the first general election under the Constitution 2010, held on 4th March 2013.
Counsel for the Plaintiff had argued that the City Council was rendered defunct upon promulgation of the Constitution 2010. The court held that local authorities remained in existence until completion of the first general election under the Constitution 2010; that election was held on 4th March 2013, after the lease's execution on 2nd February 2013. The offices of Mayor and Town Clerk were therefore in place and the execution of the lease was regular.
Whether the alternative claim for damages equivalent to market value was sustainable
It failed because it was a liquidated/special claim neither specially pleaded nor strictly proved, and no valuation report was tendered.
The Plaintiff never pleaded the value of the suit property nor produced a valuation report. Citing Superior Homes (Kenya) PLC v Water Resources Authority, the court reiterated that special damages must be stated with certainty and particularity in the plaint and proved strictly; figures cannot simply be plucked from the air. Without pleading and proof, the alternative prayer could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- An affidavit must be commissioned and sealed by a commissioner for oaths; an uncommissioned affidavit is invalid and of no legal value
- An allotment letter is incapable of conferring interest in land; the holder of an allotment letter cannot pass valid title until registered as proprietor
- A letter of allotment not complied with within the prescribed period lapses and is incapable of being revived
- An interest in land cannot be allotted or transferred where the specific parcel does not exist; a registered proprietor whose root of title is challenged must prove the legality of the acquisition beyond the title instrument
- Special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendants
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 title to land
Relief refused
#Declarations of ownership of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff never acquired title; a letter of allotment cannot pass title and the Plaintiff was never registered as owner
Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit property
An injunction vindicates a registered proprietor's rights and cannot issue against the registered owner
General damages and interest thereon
The Plaintiff proved no rights or interests capable of being vindicated; the entire suit was dismissed
Alternative relief of damages equivalent to the market value of the property
The special/liquidated claim was neither specially pleaded nor strictly proved, and no valuation report was produced
Costs
Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendants.
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.
In the absence of the requisite verifying afidavit, the Plaint beforehand and by extension the entire suit, are vitiated. In this regard, I encounter no dificulty in returning a verdict that the suit is incompetent and must equally be struck out.
It is settled law that an allotment letter is incapable of conferring interest in land, being nothing more than an ofier, awaiting the fulfi lment of conditions stipulated therein.
Allotment of an interest in land is a transaction in rem attaching to and running with a specific parcel of land.
the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of how he acquired the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal and free from any encumbrances including any and all interests which need not be noted on the register.
It must also be remembered that it is a serious thing to restrain a registered proprietor of a property over what is undeniably his unless there are justifiable grounds to do so.
i. The Plaintifi's suit be and is hereby dismissed. ii. Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendants.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the Plaint date (1st October 2019) and filing date (12th March 2020) are given
The 3rd and 4th Defendants are never named in the judgment; only the 1st and 2nd Defendants are identified by name, yet the final costs order awards costs to all Defendants
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Steel Products [Kenya] Limited v Gichu & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 54 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 580 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Plaint dated 1st October 2019, filed 12th March 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/580/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.