Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission vs. Wak Limited & 3 Others (2006) (Unreported)

On whether the suit land was available for alienation, the court upheld the Plaintiff’s assertion that the suit land fell within an interchange of two roads identified as Southern Bypass and Mombasa Road. As the Plaintiff’s evidence was uncontroverted, the court found that the suit land was government land alienated for public utility as a road reserve. Under Section 2 of the Government Lands Act, only unalienated land would be available for allocation. Therefore, the suit land was not available for allocation. On whether the 2nd Defendant was an innocent purchaser for value, the court held in the negative, holding that, in line with the Court in Chemey Investment Limited v Attorney General & 2 others [2018] eKLR, that it was inconceivable that an innocent purchaser would buy land right in the middle of the road. Further, the 2nd Defendant had failed to dispense with his duty of due diligence as a purchaser of land. In light of the circumstances above, the court held that the Plaintiff had proved its case and was entitled to the orders sought. The court ordered for the cancellation of the grant in favour of the 1st Defendant on grounds of illegality, the cancellation of the transfer in favour of the 2nd Defendant, a permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from interfering with the suit property, general damages (payable by all Defendants) amounting to Kes. 300,000 and the costs of the suit.