The Supreme Court made a landmark ruling recently. The ruling on a suit over some land in Ngara, Nairobi, will save many with pending applications on extension of leases to government land.
The ruling restored rights to a proprietor whose leasehold interest dates back to 1968, but which was to expire in 2001. The proprietor applied for an extension of the lease, three months to expiry.
However, no communication on the application was made, and the proprietor remained in occupation after the expiry, and continued to pay the applicable land rent and rates.
However, the property was allocated to a different proprietor in 2009, and a new lease was prepared. The property was then sold. In 2014, the buyer and seller conducted a forced eviction.
They threw out the proprietor who had been in occupation. The purchaser subsequently charged the property and used the proceeds to construct a high-rise building. The evicted proprietor moved to court, ending up in the Supreme Court.
Those keen on the specific legal text may peruse the ruling on Supreme Court Petition No E033 of 2023, made on April 11, 2025, by Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndungu, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko.
This column, which now rests, has severally discussed lease instruments and related processes. These processes, particularly extension and renewal of leases, have usually suffered vested-interest-driven delays and irregularities, some of which are well documented. For some leaseholders, the processes evoke anger and pain owing to the tribulations they’ve had to endure on applying.
Luckily, cumulative jurisprudence from our courts based on the Constitution and the new land laws has gradually closed some of the process gaps and continues to restore confidence in leasehold tenure rights.
The above ruling is a good extra to this case law. The Supreme Court found that the 2009 allocation was unprocedural and hence illegal, and the title derived therefrom was consequently invalid.
Therefore, the doctrine of an innocent purchaser for value wouldn’t shield the purchaser’s interest. It further found that the proprietor who continued occupying the property following the application for lease extension had a legitimate expectation that the application would be considered fairly. And having the land, the proprietor should have been furnished with reasons for denial of extension.
Consequently, the Chief Land Registrar was ordered to cancel the subsisting lease and restore the proprietorship of the evictee on the land register. The court also ordered the demolition of the highrise building.
This ruling deals a welcome blow to brokers, and political and public office holders bent on benefiting from intentional irregularities.
It motivates leaseholders to apply for an extension of their leases without worrying that the act of applying would expose their applications to deliberate misplacement, delays and subsequent reallocation.
Counties, the Lands ministry and the National Land Commission should beware of the emerging jurisprudence and retrain serving officers accordingly.
The writer is a consultant on land governance. Email: [email protected]
