Clairmont Investment Limited v China Communication Construction – Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 82 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 825 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court awarded a landowner Kshs 4.7 million for trespass, but far less than claimed, because he could not prove his higher valuation or projected rental income.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Trespass onto the suit land
Trespass was established as it was not disputed
The court found that the defendant built a septic tank and open sewage treatment pits on the plaintiff's land in 2016 without authority. The defendant did not dispute the trespass itself; the dispute was confined to valuation and quantum of damages.
Conflicting valuation reports
The court adopted the lower (defendant's) figures
Both parties filed valuations that conflicted. The plaintiff did not respond to the defendant's valuation with a further report, and the court held that the failure preponderated against the plaintiff, so the defendant's lower valuation was preferred.
Claim for loss of profit/rental at Kshs 150,000 per month
Not proved; instead Kshs 40,000 per month for 3 years awarded
The plaintiff did not prove capacity or approved plans for apartments generating Kshs 150,000 monthly, nor the duration of the trespass. The court instead adopted the defendant's valuer's rental figure of Kshs 40,000 per month over an assumed 3-year period.
Duration of the trespass
Neither party proved the duration
The court noted the absence of evidence on how long the trespass lasted, an omission by both sides, which affected the assessment of lost rent; it nonetheless adopted a 3-year period at the defendant's rental rate.
Legal principles established
#- Where two conflicting expert valuation reports are filed, the court may prefer the one with the lower figures, and a party whose report is disputed should file a further report to preponderate its case
- Loss of projected rental income must be proved by showing readiness, ability, resources and approved plans for the intended development
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of Kshs 3,000,000 being the value of the land occupied by the abandoned septic development
- 2.Kshs 1,440,000 being value of lost rent for 3 years at Kshs 40,000 per month
- 3.Kshs 300,000 for trespass; total award of Kshs 4,740,000
- 4.Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land reference No. Kajiado/Kitengela 16766
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Clairmont Investment Limited v China Communication Construction – Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 82 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). ELC No. 82 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/825/eng@2023-02-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.