SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Godfrey Karume & another v Commissioner of Lands & 18 others [2020] KEELC 3759 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3759 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
3759
Citation
[2020] KEELC 3759 (KLR)
Decided
6 February 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand AdjudicationPostureAppeal from original trialCoramWILSON GACHAN
Holding

The Court declared that the land is trust land and that the purported cancellation of the Plaintiffs' titles and subsequent transfers were unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void ab initio.

Facts

The Plaintiffs, Godfrey Karume and Timothy Muchina Chege, filed a suit against 19 Defendants, including the Commissioner of Lands and Land Registrars, seeking a declaration that the land they own is trust land, and that the purported cancellation of their titles and subsequent transfers were unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.

Issues

  1. Declaration that the land is trust land
  2. Cancellation of registrations and transfer of land to Plaintiffs
  3. Damages and costs of construction

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs testified that they purchased the land during the land adjudication process and hold the titles in their names. The Court found that the Land Adjudication Act only applies to trust lands and that the Plaintiffs' titles were therefore null and void.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • Cancellation of all registrations from 22.12.1986 and registration of Plaintiffs as sole proprietors of the suit lands
  • Award of general and punitive damages

Remedies

  • Damages and costs of construction

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Land Adjudication Act Cap 284
  • Government Lands Act Cap 280
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case