Trompell v Titus (Environment and Land Case 124 of 2021 & Miscellaneous Case E003 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 5831 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a disputed Diani property sold at Kshs 26 million after preferring a government valuation over a private one.
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 Government Survey Report or Wyco Valuers & Company survey should be affirmed as the authoritative valuation for the Suit Property, given the conflicting positions of the parties and the existence of multiple valuation reports
- 2.Who shall bear the costs of the valuation and subsequent processes
Key legal issues
#Which of the competing valuation reports should be adopted for execution of the judgment
The Government Land Valuer's report dated 28th May 2025 was affirmed as the authoritative valuation at Kshs. 26,000,000
The 3rd February 2022 judgment mandated valuation by the Government Land Valuer, Kwale. The report was prepared by a qualified public officer, complied with the court order, used standard methodology, and was recent. The Defendant's privately commissioned report lacked impartiality and was not mandated by the original orders; the depreciation objection lacked evidential support and a third valuation would only delay execution.
Who bears the costs of the valuation and subsequent processes
Costs of the valuation, sale or buyout borne equally, consistent with the original order; each party to bear their own costs of the ruling
Costs are at the court's discretion and follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the original judgment had ordered valuation costs to be shared equally, and the court found it equitable that the costs of valuation and subsequent processes be shared equally as initially ordered.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event and the successful party is typically entitled to costs unless there are compelling reasons to decide otherwise; the award of costs is at the discretion of the court
- A valuation report prepared in compliance with a court order, by a qualified public officer, is to be preferred over a privately commissioned report for execution purposes
Court orders
#- 1.The Government Valuation Report dated 28th May 2025 affirmed as the authoritative valuation of the Suit Property for purposes of executing the Judgment of 3rd February 2022
- 2.Suit Property Kwale/Diani Complex/644 valued at Kshs. 26,000,000/= for equitable division
- 3.Suit Property to be sold within ninety (90) days from the date of the ruling, proceeds divided equally (50% each) between the parties
- 4.Plaintiff/Decree Holder at liberty to buy out the Defendant's 50% share at the valued amount within 30 days
- 5.Costs of the sale or buyout process, including incidental expenses, borne equally by the parties
- 6.Defendant to vacate the Suit Property within 30 days of completion of the sale or buyout, failing which eviction may be sought under Section 152E of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012
- 7.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction; execution of the court's own judgment of 3rd February 2022
Relief refused
#Defendant's proposal to adopt its own valuation report dated 14th August 2024 or commission a third valuation
A third valuation would further delay execution without sufficient justification; the Government report is recent, impartial and compliant with court orders
Defendant's objection on depreciation of property value
No compelling evidence of significant depreciation was adduced
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs; costs of the valuation, sale or buyout process and incidental expenses to be borne equally by the parties.
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.
That the Government Valuation Report dated 28th May 2025 be and is hereby afirmed as the authoritative valuation of the Suit Property for the purposes of executing the Judgment of 3rd February 2022.
That the suit property herein, Kwale/Diani Complex/644 is hereby valued at a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty Six Million only (Kshs. 26,000,000/=.
That an order made to have the Suit Property sold of within the next ninety (90) days from the date of this ruling, with the proceeds divided equally (50% each) between the Plaintifi/Decree Holder and the Defendant/Judgement Debtor.
That, notwithstanding the above order under ( c ) above, the Plaintifi/Decree Holder shall be at liberty to buy out the Defendant’s 50% share at the valued amount within 30 days.
That each party shall bear their own costs.
The Proviso of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya holds that Costs follow the events.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently cites Section 27(1) of the 'Civil Procedure Rules Cap. 21' while elsewhere referring to the 'Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21'
The court cites its own judgment (Sagalla Lodge Limited) as precedent for the costs principle
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Trompell v Titus (Environment and Land Case 124 of 2021 & Miscellaneous Case E003 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 5831 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5831/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.