Why we should celebrate the recent Supreme Court ruling on Ngara land lease

Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court made a land mark 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 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.
Expired lease reallocated without communication
However, the property was allocated to a different proprietor in 2009 and a new lease prepared. The property was then sold out. 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 the Supreme Court Petition No E033 of 2023, made on 11th April, 2025 by Supreme Court Judges 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 lease holders, the processes evoke anger and pain owing to the tribulations they’ve had to endure on applying.
Invalidation of new lease
Luckily, cumulative jurisprudence from our courts based on the 2010 constitution and the new land laws has gradually closed some of the process gaps, and continues to restore confidence on 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 consequently invalid. Therefore, the doctrine of innocent purchaser for value wouldn’t shield the purchaser’s interest. It further found that the proprietor who continued occupying the property following application for lease extension had a legitimate expectation that the application would be considered fairly. And being in possession of 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. Furthermore, the Court ordered the demolition of the high-rise building.
Good precedent for lease administration
This ruling deals a welcome blow to brokers, political and public office holders bent on benefiting from intentional irregularities. It motivates lease holders to apply for extension of their leases without worrying that the very act of applying would expose their applications to deliberate misplacement, delays and subsequent reallocation. County governments, the Lands Ministry and the National Land Commission should beware the emerging jurisprudence and retrain serving officers accordingly.
Dated: 24th April, 2025