Reli Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Sinohydro Corporation Limited (Environment & Land Case 90 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 280 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered a Chinese road contractor to pay Kshs 130 million for trespassing and excavating murram on privately owned Kisumu land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Ownership of the suit property
The Plaintiff proved lawful ownership of Kisumu Municipality Block 17/1-277 through the 1976 compulsory acquisition Gazette Notice, the 1994 letter of allotment, acceptance and payment of charges, and the NLC determination in Gazette Notice No. 11714 of 9th November 2018; the varying land reference numbers were satisfactorily explained.
The court found the evidence of ownership overwhelming. KIKAKO, on whose ancestral claim the Defendant relied, was not a party and adduced no proof of its claim. The NLC had determined the dispute in the Plaintiff's favour. The change from Block 16 to Block 17 was explained as a correction of a numbering error by the Director of Surveys, and the lack of title was attributable to pending processing of titles for the 277 subdivisions.
Whether the Defendant trespassed
Yes. The Defendant had no reasonable excuse or justifiable cause for entering the suit property because KIKAKO, from which it purported to lease the land, had no proprietary interest in it.
Trespass was defined as intrusion without justifiable cause, and title carries legal possession. The Defendant admitted entering and excavating murram but claimed a lease from KIKAKO. Since KIKAKO had no proprietary interest, the Defendant's belief in the lease provided no defence, and the Defendant was held a trespasser notwithstanding its assertion of innocent reliance.
Extent of the trespass
The Defendant was liable for trespass only on a portion measuring 6 acres (2.43 Ha.), not the 6 hectares (approximately 15 acres) claimed by the Plaintiff, based on the two lease agreements (2 acres and 1 acre) plus the undisclosed 5½-acre KONDENGE family lease under which 3 acres had already been excavated.
The court found the Defendant's claim of excavating only 3 acres implausible given the rate of excavation between April and May 2014. Minutes attached to the lease agreements revealed a prior 5½-acre lease of which 3 acres had been excavated. The court also accepted that other miners operated on the land, so the Plaintiff's claim for the whole excavated area could not be laid at the Defendant's door.
Assessment of damages for trespass
Damages of Kshs. 130,000,000/- all-inclusive were awarded, being the value of the murram required to backfill the 6-acre portion (approximately 64,152 tons at about Kshs. 2,000/- per ton), adopting the measurements and rates of the Plaintiff's valuer as reasonable.
The court applied the principle that a plaintiff whose land has been used by a defendant is entitled to the amount reasonably payable for that use, and considered rehabilitation costs and the years the land lay unused. The Defendant produced no expert evidence to challenge the Plaintiff's valuer and gave no alternative price per ton. The figure awarded was proportionate to the 6-acre liability, not the full 6-hectare claim.
Legal principles established
#- Trespass is any intrusion by a person on land in the possession of another without justifiable cause; title to land carries with it legal possession, so a lawful owner need not prove specific damage to recover for trespass.
- Where trespass is proved, a party need not prove specific damage or loss to be awarded general damages; the court assesses damages depending on the unique circumstances of each case.
- Where a defendant has made use of the plaintiff's land, damages are measured by what would reasonably be paid for that use; a trespasser cannot escape liability by showing a lease from a third party with no proprietary interest in the land.
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, representatives, assigns or any other persons acting through its direction from trespassing upon, continuing to trespass upon, excavating murram on or in any other way interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and use of all that parcel of land known as Kanyakwar Residential Plots/Kisumu Block 17
- 2.Kshs. 130,000,000/- as general damages for trespass together with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 3.The costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a claim of trespass to land (proceedings commenced by plaint; matters touching land use, title and environmental degradation of land).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Reli Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Sinohydro Corporation Limited (Environment & Land Case 90 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 10th April 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/280/eng@2025-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.