Grey Peak Company Limited v Kasena (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3897 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that a registered title certificate is near-conclusive proof of land ownership, even when nobody defends the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff, in an undefended suit, proved ownership of the suit properties
The Plaintiff discharged the burden on a balance of probabilities through a registered transfer for consideration dated 18th July 1994 and title certificates
Although unopposed, the Plaintiff was still required to prove its case. It produced a transfer dated 18th July 1994 from the vendor, registered on 22nd July 1994, and certificates of title. Under Sections 24(a) and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, registration vests absolute ownership and the title is prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud or misrepresentation, which was not alleged here.
Whether the Defendant's entry and activities on the land amounted to trespass warranting eviction and injunction
The Plaintiff established trespass and was entitled to all the reliefs claimed, including injunction, eviction and damages
The court found the Defendant unlawfully invaded, entered and took possession of the suit properties in 2023, denied the Plaintiff access, and committed acts of waste. With ownership proved under the Land Registration Act and no contest from the Defendant, the court held the Plaintiff entitled to the relief sought in the Plaint, comprising declaration, permanent injunction, eviction, police/chief supervision and damages for trespass.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff bears the burden of proving its case on a balance of probabilities even where the suit proceeds by formal proof
- Registration of a person as proprietor of land vests absolute ownership and all rights and privileges in that person
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corrupt scheme
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of Title Numbers CR 21907, CR 21908, CR 21909 and CR 21910 and entitled to peaceful and quiet possession
- 2.Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from constructing upon, alienating, encumbering, selling, disposing of or interfering with the suit properties
- 3.Eviction of the Defendant from the suit properties
- 4.Damages for trespass
- 5.Costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act (suit concerning title to and possession of land); procedure under Order 10 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules (formal proof)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grey Peak Company Limited v Kasena (Environment & Land Case E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3897 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Malindi), Plaint dated January 16, 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3897/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.