Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Kisumu ELC suit; relates to L.R. No. Kisumu Municipality/Block II/121)· [2025] KEELC 3766 (KLR)

Hussein v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 358 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3766 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2025
4,498 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A landowner suing Kenya Pipeline for trespass lost because she couldn't prove the pipeline sat outside a pre-existing easement corridor.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, registered proprietor of L.R. No. Kisumu Municipality/Block II/121 since 2008, sued the Defendant alleging that on 25th November 2015 it trespassed onto her land and laid new pipelines without her consent, rendering the property unfit for use. She sought a permanent injunction, removal of the pipes and restoration, alternatively Kshs.109,250,000 being the value of the land plus 15% disturbance allowance, and general damages for breach of Article 40 of the Constitution. The Defendant denied trespass, asserting that a 30-metre pipeline easement was created in 1990 when the land was unalienated government land under the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, and further that the Plaintiff's title had been revoked by the National Land Commission vide Gazette Notice dated 18th July 2014. The court framed five issues: ownership of the suit land, whether it is public land, trespass, entitlement to relief, and costs. On authority of the earlier judgment in Kisumu ELC Petition No. 25 of 2017, which found no revocation decision capable of being quashed, the court proceeded on the premise that the Plaintiff's title remained intact and the land is private property. However, the Plaintiff produced no surveyor's report showing the new pipeline lay outside the existing 30-metre corridor, and the valuation report covered only the value of the entire land. Trespass was therefore not proved on a balance of probabilities; consequently the injunction, removal, compensation and constitutional damages claims all failed. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the Plaintiff's title

Holding

The court proceeds on the premise that the Plaintiff's title remains intact, per the pronouncement in Petition No. 25 of 2017

Reasoning

The NLC revoked the title by Gazette Notice dated 18 July 2014, but in Kisumu ELC Petition No. 25 of 2017 the court found there was no revocation decision capable of being quashed and dismissed the petition. Neither the dismissal nor any appeal quashed the Gazette Notice; equally, it did not declare the title revoked. For this suit the court adopts the petition's pronouncement that no revocation decision existed, so the Plaintiff's title stands.

p. 8
02

Whether the suit land is public land

Holding

No; the land remains private property registered in the Plaintiff's name

Reasoning

Because the court found the Plaintiff's title intact following the pronouncement in Petition No. 25 of 2017, it followed that the suit land is not public land but remains private property registered in the Plaintiff's name.

p. 8
03

Whether the Defendant trespassed

Holding

Trespass not proved

Reasoning

It was common ground a pipeline existed on a 30-metre corridor before Plantex Limited and the Plaintiff acquired the land. The Plaintiff adduced no surveyor's report showing the 2015 pipeline lay outside that corridor, and the valuation report dealt only with the value of the entire land. The burden of proving trespass lay on the Plaintiff and was not discharged.

p. 8
04

Entitlement to the relief sought

Holding

None of the reliefs is available; the entire claim, premised on trespass, fails

Reasoning

Having failed to prove trespass, the Plaintiff cannot obtain a permanent injunction or an order for removal of pipes and restoration. Compensation as an alternative requires proof of compulsory acquisition, which was neither alleged nor proved. No evidence showed damage to or diminution of value of the land, and Article 40 was not breached. The claim on a balance of probabilities therefore fails.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A title revoked by the National Land Commission ceases to be valid unless the revocation is quashed
  • A petition dismissed for failure to prove a revocation decision did not quash the Gazette Notice; the effect was to leave the situation as it was
  • The party alleging trespass bears the burden of proving the encroachment lay outside the existing easement corridor

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims (suit for trespass, injunction and compensation)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hussein v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 358 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3766 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Kisumu ELC suit; relates to L.R. No. Kisumu Municipality/Block II/121). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3766/eng@2025-05-08

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.