REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC CASE NO. 4 OF 2021
[FORMERLY THIKA ELC CASE NO. 115 OF 2019]
MARRIOT AFRICA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ………...……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARGARET NYAKINYUA MURIGU …………………….1ST DEFENDANT
MARY WANJIKU KANYOTU ……………….….…………2ND DEFENDANT
WILLY KIHARA ……………………………………………3RD DEFENDANT
KANGAITA COFFEE ESTATES LIMITED ….……………4TH DEFENDANT
AND
UKOMBOZI HOLDINGS LTD …………….…………INTERESTED PARTY
COUNTERCLAIM
KANGAITA COFFEE ESTATE LIMITED ……………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TRENDSETTERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED ……………..1ST DEFENDANT
MARRIOT AFRICA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED …..…..2ND DEFENDANT
UKOMBOZI HOLDINGS LIMITED …………….…………3RD DEFENDANT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ………………………..……….4TH DEFENDANT
DIRECTOR OF SURVEY …………………………………..5TH DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has approached the court vide the Plaint dated 1st July 2019
and wherein the Plaintiff has sought various reliefs. The reliefs sought vide
the Plaint are as hereunder;
(i) A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, jointly
and severally, their servants and agents, employees or
Page 1 of 144
, anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf, from
trespassing against all that parcel of land known as L.R
Number 11261/76 or any sub-plot ensuing therefrom as a
result of sub-division.
(ii) A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, jointly
and severally, their servants and agents employees or
anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf from
in any way placing any advertisement in any newspaper
or media or by way of any leaflet or similar advertising
material claiming or purporting to claim ownership of all
that parcel of land known as L.R Number 11261/76 or any
sub-plot ensuing therefrom as a result of sub-division.
(iii) A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants jointly
and severally, their servants and agents, employees or
anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf from
evicting, threatening to evict, harassing or in any other
manner interfering with the quiet enjoyment and user by
the plaintiff and other occupants and or other purchasers
of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 11261/76 or
any sub-plot ensuing form its subdivision or any portion
thereof.
(iv) A permanent injunction retraining the defendants jointly
and severally, whether by themselves, their agents,
servants, employees or anyone authorized by them or
acting on their behalf from registering any caveat or
inhibition against the title to all that parcel of land known
as L.R 11261/76 or any sub-plot ensuing from its
subdivision or any portion thereof.
(v) General damages for trespass.
Page 2 of 144
, (vi) Costs of the suit.
(vii) Interest on (5) and (6) above.
(viii) Any other remedy that this Honourable court may deem
fit to grant.
2. The 1st and 2nd Defendants duly entered appearance and thereafter filed a
statement of Defence and counter-claim dated 15th July 2019; and wherein
the said Defendants sought the following reliefs:
(a) An Inhibition order to be registered against any and all titles
that have been issued pursuant to an alleged transfer and
subsequent subdivision of L.R No. 11261/76 Ruiru, including
but not limited to the plots listed in prayer 1 above.
(b) An order for cancellation of any and all titles issued pursuant
to the transfer and subsequent subdivision of L.R No.
11261/76 Ruiru but not limited to plots listed in prayer 1 above.
(c) This Honourable court do issue a demolition and eviction
order to be effected on all structures, houses and persons
illegally on the suit premises and the said order to be enforced
by the county police commandant Kiambu county.
(d) The Honourable court do award General Damages.
(e) The Honourable court do award costs of the suit and interests
thereon.
(f) Any other remedy that the court may deem fit just and
expedient to grant.
Page 3 of 144
, 3. Though the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a counter-claim, the legitimacy of
the counter-claim was addressed by the court in terms of the ruling
rendered by Lady Justice Gacheru dated 24th September 2020; and
wherein the Learned Judge found and held that the 1st and 2nd Defendant[s]
in their personal capacities and or as directors of the 4 th Defendant could
not mount a counterclaim in so far as the suit property belonged to and was
registered in the name of a company.
4. For good measure, the court [differently constituted] found and held that
the counterclaim under reference was premature, misconceived and
incompetent. To this end, the counter-claim was struck out. [See Marriot
Africa International Ltd vs Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu & 3 others;
Ukombozi Holdings Ltd (interested parties) (2020) KEELC 1314].
5. The 3rd defendant duly entered appearance and also filed a statement of
Defence. Suffice it to state that the 3rd defendant denied the claims by and
on behalf of the Plaintiff. Further and in any event, the 3rd Defendant
contended that the suit property belonged to the 4th Defendant and that
same was never sold to and in favour of Trendsetters Investment Ltd.
Moreover, the 3rd Defendant contended that the sale [if at all] to
Trendsetters Investment Ltd was fraudulent, illegal and void.
6. The 4th Defendant duly entered appearance and filed a statement of
Defence and counter-claim dated 12th October 2020; and wherein same
sought the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the parcel of land known as L.R No.
11261/76 belongs to the plaintiff herein and the alleged sale
to the 1st defendant was null and void and the subsequent
sale of the said parcel land to the 2nd defendant and
Page 4 of 144
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC CASE NO. 4 OF 2021
[FORMERLY THIKA ELC CASE NO. 115 OF 2019]
MARRIOT AFRICA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ………...……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARGARET NYAKINYUA MURIGU …………………….1ST DEFENDANT
MARY WANJIKU KANYOTU ……………….….…………2ND DEFENDANT
WILLY KIHARA ……………………………………………3RD DEFENDANT
KANGAITA COFFEE ESTATES LIMITED ….……………4TH DEFENDANT
AND
UKOMBOZI HOLDINGS LTD …………….…………INTERESTED PARTY
COUNTERCLAIM
KANGAITA COFFEE ESTATE LIMITED ……………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TRENDSETTERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED ……………..1ST DEFENDANT
MARRIOT AFRICA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED …..…..2ND DEFENDANT
UKOMBOZI HOLDINGS LIMITED …………….…………3RD DEFENDANT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ………………………..……….4TH DEFENDANT
DIRECTOR OF SURVEY …………………………………..5TH DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has approached the court vide the Plaint dated 1st July 2019
and wherein the Plaintiff has sought various reliefs. The reliefs sought vide
the Plaint are as hereunder;
(i) A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, jointly
and severally, their servants and agents, employees or
Page 1 of 144
, anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf, from
trespassing against all that parcel of land known as L.R
Number 11261/76 or any sub-plot ensuing therefrom as a
result of sub-division.
(ii) A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, jointly
and severally, their servants and agents employees or
anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf from
in any way placing any advertisement in any newspaper
or media or by way of any leaflet or similar advertising
material claiming or purporting to claim ownership of all
that parcel of land known as L.R Number 11261/76 or any
sub-plot ensuing therefrom as a result of sub-division.
(iii) A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants jointly
and severally, their servants and agents, employees or
anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf from
evicting, threatening to evict, harassing or in any other
manner interfering with the quiet enjoyment and user by
the plaintiff and other occupants and or other purchasers
of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 11261/76 or
any sub-plot ensuing form its subdivision or any portion
thereof.
(iv) A permanent injunction retraining the defendants jointly
and severally, whether by themselves, their agents,
servants, employees or anyone authorized by them or
acting on their behalf from registering any caveat or
inhibition against the title to all that parcel of land known
as L.R 11261/76 or any sub-plot ensuing from its
subdivision or any portion thereof.
(v) General damages for trespass.
Page 2 of 144
, (vi) Costs of the suit.
(vii) Interest on (5) and (6) above.
(viii) Any other remedy that this Honourable court may deem
fit to grant.
2. The 1st and 2nd Defendants duly entered appearance and thereafter filed a
statement of Defence and counter-claim dated 15th July 2019; and wherein
the said Defendants sought the following reliefs:
(a) An Inhibition order to be registered against any and all titles
that have been issued pursuant to an alleged transfer and
subsequent subdivision of L.R No. 11261/76 Ruiru, including
but not limited to the plots listed in prayer 1 above.
(b) An order for cancellation of any and all titles issued pursuant
to the transfer and subsequent subdivision of L.R No.
11261/76 Ruiru but not limited to plots listed in prayer 1 above.
(c) This Honourable court do issue a demolition and eviction
order to be effected on all structures, houses and persons
illegally on the suit premises and the said order to be enforced
by the county police commandant Kiambu county.
(d) The Honourable court do award General Damages.
(e) The Honourable court do award costs of the suit and interests
thereon.
(f) Any other remedy that the court may deem fit just and
expedient to grant.
Page 3 of 144
, 3. Though the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a counter-claim, the legitimacy of
the counter-claim was addressed by the court in terms of the ruling
rendered by Lady Justice Gacheru dated 24th September 2020; and
wherein the Learned Judge found and held that the 1st and 2nd Defendant[s]
in their personal capacities and or as directors of the 4 th Defendant could
not mount a counterclaim in so far as the suit property belonged to and was
registered in the name of a company.
4. For good measure, the court [differently constituted] found and held that
the counterclaim under reference was premature, misconceived and
incompetent. To this end, the counter-claim was struck out. [See Marriot
Africa International Ltd vs Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu & 3 others;
Ukombozi Holdings Ltd (interested parties) (2020) KEELC 1314].
5. The 3rd defendant duly entered appearance and also filed a statement of
Defence. Suffice it to state that the 3rd defendant denied the claims by and
on behalf of the Plaintiff. Further and in any event, the 3rd Defendant
contended that the suit property belonged to the 4th Defendant and that
same was never sold to and in favour of Trendsetters Investment Ltd.
Moreover, the 3rd Defendant contended that the sale [if at all] to
Trendsetters Investment Ltd was fraudulent, illegal and void.
6. The 4th Defendant duly entered appearance and filed a statement of
Defence and counter-claim dated 12th October 2020; and wherein same
sought the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the parcel of land known as L.R No.
11261/76 belongs to the plaintiff herein and the alleged sale
to the 1st defendant was null and void and the subsequent
sale of the said parcel land to the 2nd defendant and
Page 4 of 144
