Moses Lemashon Korinko v Daniel Lekilabu [2019] KEELC 2046 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Narok Land Court confirmed a landowner's title using an undisputed certificate of title and a Land Registrar's report, but refused trespass damages because the trespass itself was not proved.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff proved ownership of Land Parcel Trans Mara/Shartuka/774
Yes - the Plaintiff's certificate of title issued on 10 August 2000 was undisputed, and the Land Registrar's report confirmed that Parcel 774 belonged to the Plaintiff while the Defendant's Parcel 936 did not exist on the ground and had been cancelled by court order.
The Plaintiff produced a certificate of title showing registration following the demarcation and adjudication of the Shartuka Adjudication Section. The Defendant did not dispute the existence of the Plaintiff's title. Pursuant to a joint request, the Land Registrar visited the land and reported that the ground evidence showed the Defendant had fenced off all the Plaintiff's land, that Parcel 774 belonged to the Plaintiff, and that Parcel 936 did not exist, its title having been cancelled by court orders in Kakamega and Kisii High Court miscellaneous applications.
Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to general damages for trespass
No - the Plaintiff did not prove that the Defendant trespassed on and appropriated the land, so damages were refused even though the declaration issued.
Although the Registrar's report showed that the Defendant had fenced off the Plaintiff's land, the court found the Plaintiff had not proved the trespass and use of the land for his own appropriation. The claim for general damages therefore failed, while the declaratory relief succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- A registered owner who produces a valid certificate of title not disputed by the opposing party, and whose title is confirmed on the ground by the Land Registrar, proves ownership of the land on a balance of probability
- A claimant seeking general damages for trespass must prove the trespass and the appropriation of the land
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the registered and lawful owner of L.R. No. Trans Mara/Shartuka/774
- 2.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court, Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (implied; suit concerns ownership of registered land)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moses Lemashon Korinko v Daniel Lekilabu [2019] KEELC 2046 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Cause No. 348 of 2017 (Formerly Kisii ELC Cause No. 726 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2046/eng@2019-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.