Kilonzo v Kiige; Embakasi Ranching Company Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E285 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 377 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court-level Environment and Land Court confirmed a registered landowner's title, ordered an occupier to vacate within 90 days, and dismissed his counter-claim for want of evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Plot P.2255-B or F.275-B created the suit property
Plot No. P.2255-B, allocated to the plaintiff, was the plot registered as LR.No.Nairobi/Block 105/7986
The plaintiff produced her Share Certificate No. 11941, Payment Receipt No. 00254 for the bonus plot P.2255-B, and Receipt No. 040897 plus the Site Visit Confirmation Note showing the resultant property from P.2255-B was Nairobi Block/105/7986. The defendant, who did not attend the hearing, produced no documents supporting the claimed Plot F.275-B. The court found the documentary chain established the derivation.
Whether the plaintiff's registration was lawful
The registration was properly documented and lawful under the Land Registration Act; the plaintiff is the absolute proprietor under Section 26
The plaintiff produced the lease in the Interested Party's name, the Transfer of Lease registered on 18.09.2017, and the Certificate of Lease dated 18.09.2017. The defendant alleged fraud and a purported sale by one Christine Njoki but adduced no evidence, the defence case having been closed after non-attendance. In the absence of proof of fraud, the registered title stood.
Whether the defendant's occupation was lawful and whether adverse possession could arise
The occupation was unlawful, illegitimate and illegal regardless of its duration; consent was neither granted nor pleaded
Both parties confirmed the defendant occupied the land. The plaintiff pleaded the occupation was contested from the start via complaints to local administration, and no consent was given. The defendant neither pleaded nor proved consent, and his adverse possession claim failed as no evidence was produced at trial.
Whether the counter-claim was merited
The counter-claim failed for non-prosecution
The defendant bore the burden of proving the counter-claim under Section 107 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80. Having failed to attend court on the hearing date, the counter-claim was neither prosecuted nor proved, and was dismissed in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- A registered proprietor's title under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act is prima facie evidence of lawful ownership, and failure to adduce evidence at trial is fatal to a claim
- The party who loses bears the costs of the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the plaintiff, pursuant to the certificate of lease dated 18.09.2017, is the lawful and legitimate owner of LR.No.Nairobi/Block 105/7986
- 2.The defendant and his agents are directed to vacate, demolish structures and hand over vacant possession of LR.No.Nairobi/Block 105/7986 within 90 days, failing which an eviction order will automatically issue
- 3.An order of permanent injunction issued against the defendant restraining him from entering, invading, trespassing on or dealing with the suit property
- 4.In the event of non-compliance, the plaintiff may engage a registered court bailiff to enforce the eviction, with police assistance
- 5.The counter-claim dated 24.01.2023 is dismissed for want of prosecution
- 6.The plaintiff is awarded costs of the amended plaint and the counter-claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilonzo v Kiige; Embakasi Ranching Company Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E285 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Amended Plaint dated 15.04.2024 and Counter-Claim dated 24.01.2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/377/eng@2025-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.