Njogu & 5 others v Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd & another (Land Case 92 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6536 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that riparian land on private property still belongs to the owner, and unauthorised government sewer works there amount to trespass.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Ownership of the suit properties
The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Plaintiffs hold legal interests in their parcels and the 2nd Plaintiff holds a beneficial interest in parcel 454
Despite the Defendants' denial, adequate documentary evidence including copies of title deeds and a letter of grant of representation established ownership, and there was no evidence of adverse third-party claims.
Whether the sewer line was constructed on riparian land
The sewer line was constructed within riparian land as identified by WRA
The WRA report dated 24.02.2021 identified a seasonal stream, a tributary of Ol'Kalou river, near the suit properties, and the court found no fault with its technical findings on the extent of the riparian land determined under Regulation 116(2), (3) and (4).
Whether riparian land is public land and whether the Plaintiffs had a cause of action
Riparian land on private parcels remains private; the Plaintiffs had a legitimate cause of action and the Defendants' entry amounted to trespass
Neither the Water Act of 2016 nor the Regulations transfers ownership by reason of proximity to a water body; Article 62(1) does not expressly classify riparian land as public land. The Plaintiffs retained defined parcels on the RIM, subject only to use restrictions, so entry without consent was trespass, actionable per se.
Whether the Plaintiffs proved their claim
The claim was proved against the 2nd Defendant on a balance of probabilities; the 1st Defendant, as agent of a disclosed principal, bears no personal liability
The trespass finding supported liability against the 2nd Defendant as the principal. The 1st Defendant acted as agent of a disclosed principal and could not be personally liable.
Legal principles established
#- Riparian land designation does not change ownership of the land; it only imposes management controls on land use
- Riparian land adjoining a water body on private land does not become public land under Article 62 of the Constitution merely by reason of its proximity to the water body
- Participation in a public participation forum does not amount to consent to entry and construction on private land
- An agent of a disclosed principal is not personally liable for its actions
- Costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise for good reason
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled as against the Defendants to exclusive use and possession of Title Nos. Nyandarua/Ol'Kalou Central/3403, 454, 6472, 5496, 5495, 5648 and 3321
- 2.The 1st to 6th Plaintiffs are each awarded general damages of Kshs.200,000/= for trespass to land as against the 2nd Defendant only
- 3.The Plaintiffs are awarded costs of the suit to be borne by the 2nd Defendant only
- 4.The Plaintiffs' claim against the 1st Defendant is dismissed with no order as to costs
- 5.Any relief sought in the further amended plaint not expressly granted is deemed to have been denied
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit under the Civil Procedure Act; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land and trespass claims
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njogu & 5 others v Sino Hydro Corporation Ltd & another (Land Case 92 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6536 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6536/eng@2024-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.