Registered Trustees of Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Perushottam (Swaminarayan) Sanstha v Kaab Investments Limited (Environment & Land Case E054 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 820 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa declared a trust the lawful owner of land it bought at a bank auction and ordered the previous owner to stop occupying it and pay costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved ownership of the suit property
The plaintiff is the lawfully registered owner of LR 1348/I/MN, having purchased it at a public auction conducted by Middle East Bank Limited in exercise of its statutory power of sale, and its title was never challenged.
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act renders a certificate of title prima facie proof of ownership, challengeable only on fraud, mistake, undue procedure or illegality. The defendant was properly served but did not enter appearance or challenge the title. The court nonetheless assessed the plaintiff's case on its merits, noting the auction, certificate of memorandum of sale and transfer documents, and found ownership proved on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction
A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant from entering, occupying, trespassing on or interfering with the suit property.
Applying the Nguruman principles, registered ownership established a prima facie case. The demand letter of 7th March 2023 and photographs of ongoing construction (exhibits 12 and 13) showed the defendant refused to vacate and was building on the land. The court found the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the defendant were not stopped, and that the balance of convenience favoured the injunction.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs
Costs were awarded to the plaintiff under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs following the event.
Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. Since the suit was prompted by the defendant's actions and the defendant did not defend it, the plaintiff was awarded costs.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie proof of ownership of land, but can be challenged where there is fraud, mistake, undue procedure or illegality (Section 26, Land Registration Act).
- Even in uncontested suits, the burden of proof on a claimant is not lessened; it remains proof on a balance of probabilities.
- The requirements for an injunction (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) apply as separate, distinct and logical hurdles, whether interlocutory or permanent.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Land Reference Number 1348/I/MN.
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, workers, servants and/or any person acting on their directions/instructions from entering, remaining upon, occupying, trespassing or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's use and occupation of Land Reference Number 1348/I/MN.
- 3.The defendant to meet the plaintiff's costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (suit filed by plaint dated 30th May 2023)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Perushottam (Swaminarayan) Sanstha v Kaab Investments Limited (Environment & Land Case E054 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 820 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/820/eng@2025-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.