Githinji v Hared; Hared (Counter Claimer); Githinji (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment & Land Case E222 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 2915 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner with a clear title won his trespass case, securing eviction, demolition, an injunction, and KES 1 million in damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated/proven his entitlement to the suit property or otherwise
- 2.Whether the Defendant has trespassed onto the suit property or otherwise
- 3.What reliefs (if any) ought to be granted
Key legal issues
#Root of title in competing claims over the same land
The Plaintiff, holding a certificate of title traced through a documented chain from L.R No. 15400/171 (Amboseli Court Ltd) to Tradeline Investments Ltd to himself, proved his entitlement; the Defendant's claim rested on 'equitable pieces of papers' and unfounded allegations of fraud, and the suit property traced to L.R 15400/171, not L.R 11379/3.
The court examined the documentary chain from Amboseli Court Ltd's sale to Tradeline Investments Ltd and the subsequent registration of Plot 298 as L.R No. 15400/470 in the Plaintiff's name, corroborated by a Principal Land Surveyor from the Directorate of Survey. The Defendant alleged illegality and excision from L.R 11379/3 but produced no evidence of fraud and never impleaded Amboseli Court Ltd. Applying Munyu Maina and Hubert L. Martin, the court held the Plaintiff demonstrated a good and unbroken root of title.
Whether the Defendant trespassed on the suit property
Yes. The Defendant admitted under cross-examination that his construction stands on Plot 298 (L.R No. 15400/470) and that he has no documents touching that plot, establishing unauthorised entry and construction as trespass under the Trespass Act, Cap 294.
DW1 conceded the sale agreement and share certificate related to Plot 212, not Plot 298, yet the construction stood on Plot 298. His entry and construction were without the Plaintiff's consent. Relying on the Trespass Act and Church Commissioners v Wayuga, the court held any unauthorised entry, whether present or continuous, is trespass and a continuing one gives rise to a fresh cause of action daily.
Remedies flowing from proven ownership and trespass
Declaration of ownership, eviction, demolition, permanent injunction and general damages of Kes. 1,000,000/= (as pleaded) granted; mesne profits refused for failure of pleading and proof; special damages refused as never provided; counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act vest absolute ownership in the registered proprietor, entitling exclusive possession, use and eviction of trespassers (Mohansons; Waas Enterprises). Mesne profits require particularised pleading and strict proof (Karanja Mbogua; Christine Nyanchama Oanda). The counterclaim failed as Plot 212 no longer existed and the Defendant lacked locus standi to sue for the company (Omondi v National Bank; Salmond v Salmond).
Legal principles established
#- Where two parallel claims over the same property arise, each disputant must demonstrate the root of title, tracing the chain of events underpinning the certificate of title; a registered proprietor cannot rely solely on dangling the instrument of title
- A claim for mesne profits, like special damages, must be particularly pleaded and strictly proved
- Only a company itself may mount a claim on its behalf; a non-company individual litigating for the company lacks locus standi
- A permanent injunction cannot issue against the registered owner and proprietor of the designated property
- Trespass is actionable per se and an established trespasser's continuation constitutes a fresh cause of action day to day
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful and legitimate owner of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 15400/470 [I.R No. 162475], also known as Plot number 298 Amboseli Court
- 2.Defendant ordered to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property within 120 days from the date of judgment
- 3.Defendant to undertake the requisite process to remove and/or demolish the offensive construction erected on the suit property within the same 120 days
- 4.In default of vacating and handing over vacant possession, the Plaintiff at liberty to evict the Defendant and an eviction order shall issue
- 5.Costs of any eviction levied by the Plaintiff to be certified by the Deputy Registrar and recovered from the Defendant
- 6.Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from re-entering upon, remaining on and/or otherwise dealing with the suit property
- 7.General damages of Kes. 1,000,000/= awarded to the Plaintiff
- 8.Defendant's counterclaim dismissed
- 9.Costs of the suit and the counterclaim awarded to the Plaintiff
- 10.Any other relief not expressly granted declined
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (environment and land claims), no specific article/provision invoked in the judgment
Relief refused
#Mesne profits at Kshs. 50,000/= per month from November 2022
Claim neither pleaded nor particularised, and no documentary evidence tendered to underpin it; must be specially pleaded and strictly proved
Special damages (to be provided)
Suit was heard and concluded before the special damages were provided/particularised
General damages of Kes. 5,000,000/= (court's own assessment)
Plaintiff only sought Kes. 1,000,000/=; court awarded the lesser sum sought
Defendant's counterclaim reliefs (declarations over L.R No. 11379/3 and Plot 212, injunction, mesne profits, punitive damages)
Defendant failed to establish title to Plot 212 (non-existent), lacked locus standi to claim on behalf of Kiambu Dandora Farmers Company Ltd, and could not obtain injunction against the registered proprietor
Costs
Costs of the suit and the counterclaim be and are hereby awarded to the Plaintiff.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the premises, the final orders that commend themselves to the court are as hereunder; i. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Plaintifi is the lawful and legitimate owner of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 15400/470 [I.R No. 162475] or better still known as Plot number 298 Amboseli Court.
The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property within 120 days from the date hereof.
The Plaintifi herein be and is hereby awarded General Damages of Kes. 1, 000, 000/= only.
The Defendant's counterclaim be and is hereby Dismissed.
Costs of the suit and the counterclaim be and are hereby awarded to the Plaintifi.
the Plaintifi herein has tendered and placed before the court plausible, cogent and credible evidence to demonstrate the root of his certiicate of title. Furthermore, it is also important to outline that the Plaintifi has a certiicate of title whereas the Defendant's claim to the suit property is premised on [sic] equitable pieces of papers and not certiicate of title.
even though both DW1 and DW2 contended that the certiicate of title held by and on behalf of the Plaintifi was illegal and unlawful, no evidence was tendered and/or produced to show the foundation of [sic] the fraud alluded to by the Defendant.
the Defendant who is purporting to procure orders on behalf of Kiambu Dondora Company Ltd is devoid of locus standi. In any event same is a busybody.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment contains an internally contradictory statement on the Defendant's contention
Inconsistent reference to source of the survey F/R plan number (described as 383/70 in DW2's evidence but the produced plan is over L.R 15400/470 for Plot 278-Sosian Estate)
PW2's evidence that the certificate of title shows original land as L.R No. 15400/172/289 sits awkwardly with the Plaintiff's own evidence that the original parcel was L.R No. 15400/171
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githinji v Hared; Hared (Counter Claimer); Githinji (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment & Land Case E222 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 2915 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2915/eng@2025-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.