1. Klaus Ridderskamp Ulrike Gehring (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has come to court against the defendants claiming that he is the proprietor of the Land Parcel Number MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 and when he became the registered owner thereof, he was issued with a Certificate of Lease to that effect.
2. The lease thereof was due to expire on 11th October 2012 and therefore he obtained requisite approvals for extension of the lease from the 1st defendant after which the Plaintiff forwarded their Application to the National Lands Commission which has the mandate to finalize the application which is still pending.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that on 20th March 2017, the 1st Defendant wrote to him intimating that the lease had expired in 2013 and that the suit property had reverted back to the County Government of Mombasa. This culminated into an exchange of multiple letters and in June, the Plaintiff informed the 1st defendant that their actions are illegal, fraudulent and an intention to grab the suit property as his application for extension of the lease is still pending.
4. On or about 16th November the 2nd Defendant having been allegedly allocated the suit property by the 1st Defendant trespassed onto the suit property and demolished part of the perimeter wall erected by the Plaintiff.
5. The particulars of fraud by the 1st and 2nd defendants are purporting to have the power to eject the plaintiffs from the land owned by the Government of the Republic of Kenya, Allegedly allocating the suit property to the 2nd defendant, Purporting to be owners of land owned by the Government of Kenya, Disregarding the Application by the Plaintiff to renew the lease in respect of the suit property, engineering the destruction of the Plaintiffs property jointly with the 2nd defendant.
6. The Plaintiffs aver that the defendants' actions are a criminality and a travesty of the Plaintiffs rights and interest over the suit property.
7. The Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that the County Government of Mombasa is not a custodian of the revisionary interest in parcel number MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 on behalf of the Republic of Kenya Declaration that the 1st Defendant has no locus standi to allot parcel number MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 to anyone for that matter.
8. Lastly, a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendants its members, agents, representatives or assigns from trespassing, constructing, erecting, developing or dealing with in any manner whatsoever with MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 pursuant to the alleged allotment by the 1st Defendant or interfering with the plaintiffs use and occupation thereof pending hearing and determination of the Plaintiff’s Application for extension of lease before the National Land Commission. Plus, costs and interest thereof.
9. The 1st defendant filed defense denying having given the Plaintiff any extension of the lease and states that indeed the lease terminated on 1st January 2013. The defendants add that the allegations that the land reverted to the County government is inaccurate as the county government asserts not reverting the land in the letter dated 10th April 2017.
10. The 2nd defendants denied the Plaintiffs allegation that he obtained the requisite approvals for lease extension and forwarded the same to National Land Commission but maintained that upon expiry of the lease, the same reverted to the government. The Defendant admits that indeed the application for extension of the lease is still pending, however itself is not proof of renewal.
11. When the matter came up for hearing on 24th February 2026, the Plaintiff (PW1) adopted his statement dated 26th November 2017 as evidence in chief and produced the documents dated 29th November 2017. He stated that he acquired the property with Ulrike Gehring who gave him general power of attorney over the property. He stated that he has a lease of ninety-nine years (99) to which he applied an extension and prepared paperwork for renewal. He added that some people are claiming the property but he maintained that the property belongs to him. He prayed for judgment to the effect that the court should declare the property is his. He stated that the court should injunct the defendants as prayed.
12. The Plaintiffs witness PW (2) adopted his statement as evidence in chief and stated that he has worked for the Plaintiff for over twenty-six years and the Plaintiff has been in occupation of the property all through the years. He maintained that the land belongs to the Plaintiff and the defendants broke its perimeter wall. He also prayed for judgment.
13. The Defendants failed to appear for hearing therefore the Plaintiffs evidence remains uncontroverted.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
14. I have considered the pleadings, evidence on record and submissions and do find that the Plaintiff was issued with a certificate of Lease on 8th April 1994, which ran for 99 years from 1914. The lease expired on 11th October 2012. He applied for extension of lease and prepared all reports. On 27th March 2014, he received communication from the National Land Commission that his matter was being looked into. However, the land was reallocated to the 2nd defendant.
15. Article 62(2) of the Constitution provides that public land vested in a county government shall be held by the county government in trust for the people resident in the county and shall be administered on their behalf by the National Land Commission.
16. Article 67(2)(a) mandates the National Land Commission to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments.
17. Section 5(2)(a) of the National Land Commission Act, expressly provides that one of the functions of the Commission is to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments.
18. Therefore, the National Land Commission has the mandate to administer public land and determine applications relating to the renewal or extension of leases over such land.
19. The Plaintiff having his application for renewal of the lease and the National Land Commission having informed him that the same was set down for consideration, had legitimate expectation that his application would be considered and determined before any adverse decision is made concerning his occupation of the suit property. In the case of Republic v National Land Commission & 7 others; Taylor & 5 others (Ex parte) (Suing as the Trustees of Uasin Gishu Arts Society of Eldoret) (Judicial Review 09 of 2017 & 04 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELC 3 (KLR) the court stated that a former holder of a Government leasehold title, who had complied with the terms of the lease, held a legitimate expectation that such lease would be renewed to him by the Commissioner of Lands. It is my considered view, that despite there not being any explicit provision in the GLA, concerning renewal of leases of developed town plots, such plots needed to be renewed to the previous leaseholder, unless the leaseholder had breached a fundamental term of the lease, or is no longer interested in its renewal.
20. The 1st Defendant did not have lawful authority to avail the suit portion for allocation, before the Commission determined the Plaintiff's application, or to purport to allocate it to the 2nd Defendant. Any such allocation purported to be undertaken in the circumstance was devoid of legal authority and therefore null and void.
21. In sum, the court finds that the Plaintiff’s application to the National Land Commission for extension of lease has to be first considered by virtue of legitimate expectation.
22. The court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs suit is merited and orders for the rectification of registration, if any, of the suit property in the name of the 2nd defendant to the name of the Plaintiff.
23. An order of injunction is issued forthwith against the 2nd defendants, its members agents, representatives or assigns, restraining them from constructing, developing or dealing with in any manner with MOMBASA/M.S BLOCK 1/251 as and until the National Land Commission considers and determines the application of the extension of the lease by the Plaintiffs that is pending determination. Costs to the Plaintiffs. Orders accordingly.
2. The lease thereof was due to expire on 11th October 2012 and therefore he obtained requisite approvals for extension of the lease from the 1st defendant after which the Plaintiff forwarded their Application to the National Lands Commission which has the mandate to finalize the application which is still pending.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that on 20th March 2017, the 1st Defendant wrote to him intimating that the lease had expired in 2013 and that the suit property had reverted back to the County Government of Mombasa. This culminated into an exchange of multiple letters and in June, the Plaintiff informed the 1st defendant that their actions are illegal, fraudulent and an intention to grab the suit property as his application for extension of the lease is still pending.
4. On or about 16th November the 2nd Defendant having been allegedly allocated the suit property by the 1st Defendant trespassed onto the suit property and demolished part of the perimeter wall erected by the Plaintiff.
5. The particulars of fraud by the 1st and 2nd defendants are purporting to have the power to eject the plaintiffs from the land owned by the Government of the Republic of Kenya, Allegedly allocating the suit property to the 2nd defendant, Purporting to be owners of land owned by the Government of Kenya, Disregarding the Application by the Plaintiff to renew the lease in respect of the suit property, engineering the destruction of the Plaintiffs property jointly with the 2nd defendant.
6. The Plaintiffs aver that the defendants' actions are a criminality and a travesty of the Plaintiffs rights and interest over the suit property.
7. The Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that the County Government of Mombasa is not a custodian of the revisionary interest in parcel number MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 on behalf of the Republic of Kenya Declaration that the 1st Defendant has no locus standi to allot parcel number MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 to anyone for that matter.
8. Lastly, a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendants its members, agents, representatives or assigns from trespassing, constructing, erecting, developing or dealing with in any manner whatsoever with MOMBASA/M.S/BLOCK 1/251 pursuant to the alleged allotment by the 1st Defendant or interfering with the plaintiffs use and occupation thereof pending hearing and determination of the Plaintiff’s Application for extension of lease before the National Land Commission. Plus, costs and interest thereof.
9. The 1st defendant filed defense denying having given the Plaintiff any extension of the lease and states that indeed the lease terminated on 1st January 2013. The defendants add that the allegations that the land reverted to the County government is inaccurate as the county government asserts not reverting the land in the letter dated 10th April 2017.
10. The 2nd defendants denied the Plaintiffs allegation that he obtained the requisite approvals for lease extension and forwarded the same to National Land Commission but maintained that upon expiry of the lease, the same reverted to the government. The Defendant admits that indeed the application for extension of the lease is still pending, however itself is not proof of renewal.
11. When the matter came up for hearing on 24th February 2026, the Plaintiff (PW1) adopted his statement dated 26th November 2017 as evidence in chief and produced the documents dated 29th November 2017. He stated that he acquired the property with Ulrike Gehring who gave him general power of attorney over the property. He stated that he has a lease of ninety-nine years (99) to which he applied an extension and prepared paperwork for renewal. He added that some people are claiming the property but he maintained that the property belongs to him. He prayed for judgment to the effect that the court should declare the property is his. He stated that the court should injunct the defendants as prayed.
12. The Plaintiffs witness PW (2) adopted his statement as evidence in chief and stated that he has worked for the Plaintiff for over twenty-six years and the Plaintiff has been in occupation of the property all through the years. He maintained that the land belongs to the Plaintiff and the defendants broke its perimeter wall. He also prayed for judgment.
13. The Defendants failed to appear for hearing therefore the Plaintiffs evidence remains uncontroverted.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
14. I have considered the pleadings, evidence on record and submissions and do find that the Plaintiff was issued with a certificate of Lease on 8th April 1994, which ran for 99 years from 1914. The lease expired on 11th October 2012. He applied for extension of lease and prepared all reports. On 27th March 2014, he received communication from the National Land Commission that his matter was being looked into. However, the land was reallocated to the 2nd defendant.
15. Article 62(2) of the Constitution provides that public land vested in a county government shall be held by the county government in trust for the people resident in the county and shall be administered on their behalf by the National Land Commission.
16. Article 67(2)(a) mandates the National Land Commission to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments.
17. Section 5(2)(a) of the National Land Commission Act, expressly provides that one of the functions of the Commission is to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments.
18. Therefore, the National Land Commission has the mandate to administer public land and determine applications relating to the renewal or extension of leases over such land.
19. The Plaintiff having his application for renewal of the lease and the National Land Commission having informed him that the same was set down for consideration, had legitimate expectation that his application would be considered and determined before any adverse decision is made concerning his occupation of the suit property. In the case of Republic v National Land Commission & 7 others; Taylor & 5 others (Ex parte) (Suing as the Trustees of Uasin Gishu Arts Society of Eldoret) (Judicial Review 09 of 2017 & 04 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEELC 3 (KLR) the court stated that a former holder of a Government leasehold title, who had complied with the terms of the lease, held a legitimate expectation that such lease would be renewed to him by the Commissioner of Lands. It is my considered view, that despite there not being any explicit provision in the GLA, concerning renewal of leases of developed town plots, such plots needed to be renewed to the previous leaseholder, unless the leaseholder had breached a fundamental term of the lease, or is no longer interested in its renewal.
20. The 1st Defendant did not have lawful authority to avail the suit portion for allocation, before the Commission determined the Plaintiff's application, or to purport to allocate it to the 2nd Defendant. Any such allocation purported to be undertaken in the circumstance was devoid of legal authority and therefore null and void.
21. In sum, the court finds that the Plaintiff’s application to the National Land Commission for extension of lease has to be first considered by virtue of legitimate expectation.
22. The court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs suit is merited and orders for the rectification of registration, if any, of the suit property in the name of the 2nd defendant to the name of the Plaintiff.
23. An order of injunction is issued forthwith against the 2nd defendants, its members agents, representatives or assigns, restraining them from constructing, developing or dealing with in any manner with MOMBASA/M.S BLOCK 1/251 as and until the National Land Commission considers and determines the application of the extension of the lease by the Plaintiffs that is pending determination. Costs to the Plaintiffs. Orders accordingly.