Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (suit transferred from Kisii ELC to Migori ELC on 21st February 2017 and thence to Homa Bay ELC)· [2022] KEELC 42 (KLR)

Owino v Abura & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 213 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 42 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 April 2022
2,295 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Homa Bay Land Court confirmed that a registered title holder wins against squatters, but lost his Kshs 30,000 compensation claim by not proving it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, Alex Achola Owino, sued the six defendants claiming to be the lawful owner of land parcel Kanyamwa/Kabonyo/Kwandiku/1070 measuring approximately 8.0 hectares in Homa Bay County, alleging they entered the land without authority and began cultivating, subdividing and selling it. He sought a declaration of ownership, a permanent injunction, a mandatory injunction to demolish structures erected on the land, costs, and any other relief. The 1st to 5th defendants asserted they were purchasers for value who bought the land in 1994 from Jones Magoro (deceased) and had lived there since, alleging fraud by the plaintiff; the 6th defendant, though served, filed no defence. The court framed three issues: whether the plaintiff is the lawful proprietor; whether he proved trespass on a balance of probabilities; and whether the orders sought were available. The Land Registrar confirmed the plaintiff as first registered owner and that the parcels the defendants claimed were unrelated to the suit land. Relying on the plaintiff's title deed, official search and supporting exhibits, the court found him the absolute and indefeasible proprietor, held that the defendants were trespassers contrary to section 152A of the Land Act and Article 40(1) of the Constitution, and granted the declaration and injunctions. However, the claim for Kshs. 30,000 as mesne profits failed as unpleaded and unproven special damage. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff jointly and severally against the defendants, with 90 days to vacate failing which eviction would issue, plus costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of the suit land

Holding

Yes; the plaintiff is the absolute and indefeasible proprietor, his title being proven by the title deed, official search, affidavit of loss of agreement and police abstract

Reasoning

The Land Registrar confirmed the plaintiff as first registered owner of the suit land, which is not related to the parcels the defendants claimed to have bought. The plaintiff produced his title deed, official search, affidavit of loss of the sale agreement and a police abstract. The court applied sections 24, 25, 26 and 28 of the Land Registration Act (formerly ss. 27, 28, 30 of the Registered Land Act) and followed Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina on proof of lawful title acquisition, holding the acquisition legal, formal and free of encumbrances.

p. 4
02

Whether the defendants trespassed into the suit land

Holding

Yes; the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the defendants are in unlawful occupation of the suit land

Reasoning

Trespass is an unjustifiable entry upon land in the possession of another. The plaintiff testified that the defendants entered and occupied the suit land without authority. The defendants merely denied the claim and referred to other parcels of land (LR Nos. 431 and 3176) which the Land Registrar confirmed are unrelated to the suit land. The court anchored the plaintiff's right to property in Article 40(1) of the Constitution and section 152A of the Land Act, 2012, which prohibits unlawful occupation of private land.

p. 5
03

Whether the orders sought in the plaint are available to the plaintiff

Holding

Yes, except mesne profits; the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of ownership, permanent and mandatory injunctions under section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Article 40(1), but not to the unpleaded and unproven mesne profits

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown and Njenga v Njenga principles on injunctions, noting that an injunction is an equitable remedy and its duration is at the discretion of the trial judge (National Bank of Kenya v Shimmers Plaza). Section 13(7)(a) of the ELC Act provides for permanent preservation orders including the permanent and mandatory injunctions sought. However, the Kshs. 30,000 claimed as mesne profits was special damage that had to be specifically pleaded and proved, which the plaintiff failed to do.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A party claiming mesne profits, a form of special damage, must plead and prove the specific amount claimed
  • A registered proprietor who demonstrates a legal, formal and unencumbered acquisition of title is the absolute and indefeasible proprietor of the land
  • Issues for determination in a suit flow from the pleadings or as framed by the parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally in terms of orders sought in the plaint at paragraphs 7(a) to (d) of the plaint (declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, costs)
  2. 2.Defendants directed to vacate the suit land and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff within ninety (90) days from the date of judgment, failing which an eviction order to issue
  3. 3.Claim for mesne profits of Kshs. 30,000 refused for failure to plead and prove the specific amount

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 2 (definition of 'suit'; definition of mesne profits)
  • Trespass Act (Cap 294)section 3(1)
  • Registered Land Act (Cap 300, Repealed)sections 27, 28 and 30
  • Land Registration Actsections 24, 25, 26 and 28
  • Land Actsection 152A
  • Environment and Land Court Actsection 13(7)(a)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 40(1) and 260

Cases cited (8)

  • Giella-vs-Cassman Brown Company Limited
    (1973) EA 358
  • Njenga-vs-Njenga
    (1991) KLR 401
  • Galaxy Paints Company Limited-vs-Falcon Grounds Company Limited
    (2000) 2 EA 385
  • Munyu Maina-vs-Hiram Gathiha Maina
    (2013) eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd-vs-Shimmers Plaza Limited
    (2009) KLR 278 at 283
  • Rioki Estate Co. Ltd (1970) Ltd-vs-Kinuthia Njoroge
    (1977) KLR 146
  • Nakuru Industries Ltd-vs-S. S Mehta and sons
    (2016) eKLR
  • Muhiddin (suing for and on behalf of the estate of Mohammed Muhiddin Mohamed Hatimy)-vs-Jackson Muthama and 108 others
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (original jurisdiction over land disputes); sections 13(7)(a) ELC Act and Land Registration Act, 2012 invoked

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Owino v Abura & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 213 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 42 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (suit transferred from Kisii ELC to Migori ELC on 21st February 2017 and thence to Homa Bay ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/42/eng@2022-04-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.