Court upholds Kenya Airways’ ownership of Malindi land

Court gavel/FREEPIK

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Japhet Noti Charo challenging Kenya Airways’ ownership of a prime parcel of land in Malindi, affirming the airline’s title as valid and indefeasible.

The dispute centred on a plot, which Charo claimed was ancestral land lawfully allotted to him in 1998.

He accused Kenya Airways of acquiring the property fraudulently with the alleged collusion of Ministry of Lands officials.

The airline however stated that it had received a letter of allotment dated May 6, 1991, and the title deed was issued on July 15, 1994, making it the first and lawful proprietor of the land.

Kenya Airways said that in July 2006, Charo entered the property without consent and took possession, deprived of its use and enjoyment The case initially went before the Environment and Land Court (ELC) at Malindi, where the judge ruled in favor of Kenya Airways.

The court noted that Charo’s title was issued more than a decade after Kenya Airways’ title and that the allegations of fraud were unproven.

Charo’s counterclaim to cancel Kenya Airways’ title was dismissed.

On appeal, Charo argued that the trial judge ignored evidence of defects in Kenya Airways’ title and that the letter of allotment addressed to its Managing Director did not transfer ownership to the company.

However, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Judges Pauline Nyamweya, Kibaya Imaana Laibuta, and Ngenye-Macharia, upheld the lower court’s findings.

The court emphasised that allegations of fraud must be strictly proven, and that a corporate body acts through its officers, meaning a letter to a managing director does not invalidate corporate ownership.

“The appellant having failed to prove fraud on the appellant’s part, we find no fault in the learned Judge’s finding that the allegations of fraud levelled at the respondent in obtaining its title to the suit property were baseless,” the court said.

It also reiterated that a certificate of title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership unless fraud or misrepresentation by the proprietor is demonstrated.

“As the appellant failed to prove fraud, the respondent’s title remains unshaken and indefeasible,” the judgment stated.

The appeal was dismissed, and Charo was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal.

‘In view of the foregoing, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the ELC at Malindi (J.O. Olola, J.) in Malindi ELC Civil Suit No. 10 of 2008 dated  March 14,  2019 is hereby upheld,” the judges ruled.