Kasuki t/a Glory Secondary School & 2 others v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 164 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4677 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court's land court confirmed two Emali plot owners' rights against Kajiado County, but refused them compensation because they couldn't prove the destruction with proper evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs proved ownership of the suit properties
The Plaintiffs proved ownership on a balance of probabilities; no evidence showed the allotment letters were illegally or unlawfully acquired
The court traced the documentary trail for each plot: allotment letters, transfer agreements, rates clearance certificates, receipts, amalgamation letter of 15th August 2006 and certificates of search. The Defendants pleaded fraud but did not prove it to the elevated standard required. The absence of certificates of lease was excused by the ongoing Makueni–Kajiado boundary dispute.
Whether the suit properties were public land reserved for a cemetery
The Defendants failed to prove the land was reserved as a public cemetery at the time of allocation
The surveyor's report and Part Development Plan post-dated the allocations (the map was prepared in 2018 following a validation exercise), and the PDP was illegible. The court was not provided with the PDP or area map existing at the time of allotment to confirm the land was public. Even if public, reclamation must follow lawful procedures.
Whether the Defendants trespassed and destroyed property warranting damages
The claim for general damages failed for want of proof
The Plaintiffs admitted they fled and did not witness the events; no County official was charged with any offence; vehicles were not identified; photographs lacked certification under Section 106B of the Evidence Act and showed no County employees causing destruction. The claim was therefore hearsay and unproven.
Legal principles established
#- A letter of allotment does not confer ownership of land; it is a promise upon meeting certain conditions
- Fraud must be proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt
- Reclamation of public land must follow established legal procedures and mechanisms
- A party claiming trespass and damages bears the burden of proof, and unauthenticated photographs lack probative value
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Defendants' acts of threatening to repossess the plots lawfully allocated to the Plaintiffs by the defunct Ol Kejuado County Council and the destruction to their developments is unlawful
- 2.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or contractors from trespassing on, cutting trenches in, pulling down fences on, demolishing buildings on, interrupting learning activities on, subdividing, repossessing, reallocating or in any other way interfering with the Plaintiffs' Plot Nos. 951, 438A, 70, 72, 86B and 22 at Emali Trading Centre, Kajiado County
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- 4.The 3rd Plaintiff's claim marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution over disputes relating to land; suit first filed at ELC Nairobi and transferred to Kajiado
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasuki t/a Glory Secondary School & 2 others v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 164 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4677 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC No. 164 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4677/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.