Loyelei v Ekeno & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E031 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4923 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed a registered owner's title, evicted occupants claiming community land, and awarded Sh4 million for trespass.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the plaintiff has proved ownership of 6 Ha of land known as LDW/Kanamkemer Block 3 (Mt Kenya)/050.
- 2.If the plaintiff has proved trespass to the land by the defendants, to be entitled to the permanent and mandatory injunctions and general damages.
- 3.If the defendants have justified entry into and occupation of the suit land based on community land and or customary trust.
- 4.If the defendants can agitate for and represent the community in advancing customary trust and or community land.
- 5.If the defendants have a valid counterclaim.
- 6.Whether the defendants have met the ingredients of customary trust or county land right to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
- 7.What is the order of costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved ownership of the suit land
The plaintiff proved ownership through county government survey, demarcation and registration documents, unchallenged and corroborated by site visit reports.
The plaintiff produced survey forms, confirmation letters, payment receipts and reports of the Land Registrar and County Surveyor emanating from the County Government of Turkana, which holds unregistered community land in trust. These showed the land was subdivided, surveyed and registered in his name without objection. The burden of disproving ownership lay on the defendants, who produced no cogent evidence that the process was fraudulent.
Whether the defendants could litigate in a representative capacity for the community or Self-Help Group
No. The counterclaim lacked titular heading, authority to plead for the community, and the group was not registered as a community under the Community Land Act; the counterclaim was incompetent.
The defendants never pleaded that they sued in a representative capacity and had no written authority under Order 1 Rule 13. Self-help groups are unincorporated and cannot sue on behalf of members without permission. A community claiming under the Community Land Act must be registered, and no registration or mandate was shown. Capacity may be raised at any time.
Whether the suit land was community land or subject to customary trust
No evidence that the community was registered or that ancestral-land claims were substantiated; the customary trust claim failed.
Article 63(2)(b) covers ancestral land traditionally occupied; the defendants showed no resolution by the County Assembly for survey. Under Sections 6, 7 and 23 of the Community Land Act, a community acquires standing upon registration, which was not demonstrated. Ancestral claims require more than mere occupation.
Whether trespass was proved and the entitlement to injunction and damages
Trespass was proved; permanent injunction granted and Kshs.4,000,000/= awarded as general and aggravated damages.
The plaintiff showed exclusive possession before the defendants' entry. Trespass is actionable per se. The defendants used armed force and high-handedness, ignored county and police interventions, and the court declined to assist illegality. General damages of Kshs.4,000,000/= were assessed as adequate in the circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- A party must have capacity and written authority to sue in a representative capacity; capacity to sue can be raised at any time.
- Claims based on ancestral or community land require more than mere allegations or occupation.
- Evidence at variance with pleadings must be disregarded.
- Allegations of fraud must be proved above the ordinary standard of proof.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or employees from trespassing, fencing, constructing, depositing building materials, interfering with the re-installation of authenticated beacons, subdividing, leasing, selling, threatening or intimidating the plaintiff, or interfering with land known as LDW/Kanamkemer Block 3(Mt Kenya)/050.
- 2.An order of eviction against the defendants, their agents or servants, to vacate the suit land within 90 days, in default the plaintiff to demolish the illegal structures and fences and remove all building materials/debris at the defendants' costs or expenses.
- 3.General and aggravated damages for trespass of Kshs.4,000,000/=.
- 4.Costs of the suit to be met by the defendants.
- 5.The defendants' counterclaim dismissed with costs.
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 under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly cited in the judgment; claim filed by plaint)
Relief refused
#Defendants' counterclaim for declarations of ownership in customary trust
The counterclaim was incompetent and unpleaded in a representative capacity; no authority to sue on behalf of the group or community
Mandatory injunction (in the alternative to eviction order)
The court granted an eviction order with a default demolition clause instead
Costs
The costs of the suit are to be met by the defendants; the counterclaim is dismissed with costs.
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.
An order of permanent injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants or employes from trespassing, fencing, constructing, depositing building materials or in anyway whatsoever, interfering with the re-installation of authenticated beacons or subdividing, leasing, selling, threatening or intimidating the plaintifi or in any manner from interfering with land known as LDW/Kanamkemer Block 3(Mt Kenya)/050.
An order of eviction is hereby issued against the defendants, their agents or servants to vacate the suit land within 90 days from the date hereof, in default the plaintifi shall demolish the illegal structures and fences erected on the suit land and to remove all the building materials/ debris thereon, at the defendant's costs or expenses.
General and aggravated damages for trespass, encroachment, construction of illegal structures, fencing, installation of illegal beacons, removal of authenticated beacons, and denial of the plaintifi's access, use, development and enjoyment of the suit land, including the expected rental income, for Kshs.4,000,000/=.
The counterclaim by the defendants is both incompetent, lacking merit and basis in law. It is dismissed with costs.
The capacity to sue can be raised at any time, even on appeal. A party cannot arrogate a mandate it does not have in law.
a claim for land based on ancestral requires more than just mere allegations and whereon documentary evidence may not be available to sustain such a claim, one is expected to adduce evidence that goes further than mere occupation of the land in question
Issues in the judgment
#Area of the suit land is stated inconsistently - the plaint alleges approximately 2.5705 Ha and refers to '6 Ha' in the issues and pleadings, while PW1 testified the parcel measures approximately 2.505 Ha
Contradictory dates in the plaintiff's exhibits as noted in the judgment - survey form dated 14/7/2019 accompanied by a payment receipt dated 2/10/2020 or 2/11/2020 depending on the passage
The judgment refers to the defendants' written submissions as dated 5/5/2025 in one place and 15/5/2025 in another
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Koringura v Tingauko & another (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3340 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3340 (KLR)3 Jun 2026
- Waruinge v China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Limited (Environment and Land Case E124 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2638 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2638 (KLR)4 May 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Loyelei v Ekeno & 5 others (Environment & Land Case E031 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4923 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4923/eng@2025-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.