Karisa & 12 others (Suing thro. the Estate of Charo Karisa who died Intestate) v Rimba (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court dismissed a land claim because the plaintiffs offered no evidence—their written complaint alone couldn't prove ownership of six acres.
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 is the beneficial owner of the suit property and thus established its case
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the orders sought in the Plaint
- 3.Who bears the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs proved beneficial ownership of the six acres at Kashani
The plaintiffs did not. They closed their case without calling any witnesses and produced no sale agreement; unregistered title must be proved through documentary chains, which were not availed.
The court held that ownership of unregistered land is proved by tracing a root of title through documentary evidence such as sale agreements. The plaintiffs closed their case without calling witnesses, so their pleadings remained unsubstantiated allegations. The defendant's evidence of sale of 2 1/2 acres stood unchallenged. Under Article 40 of the Constitution and sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, proprietary rights require proof, and the burden lay on the plaintiffs on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint
No, having failed to prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, none of the reliefs could issue.
The declarations, injunction and order for survey and issuance of title all rested on proof of the alleged 2002 sale of six acres. Since no evidence was tendered to substantiate the claim, the court found the claim had not been proved to the standard required and refused all relief sought in the plaint.
Who bears the costs of the suit
The defendant, as the successful party, was awarded costs against the plaintiffs.
Costs are discretionary but follow the event under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. As the plaintiffs did not prove their claim, the defendant was entitled to costs for participating in the suit, and no exceptional circumstances were shown to depart from the general rule.
Legal principles established
#- Ownership of unregistered land is proved by tracing the root of title through documentary records forming an unbroken chain
- A party who fails to adduce evidence leaves its pleadings as unsubstantiated mere statements, and the opposing evidence stands unchallenged subject to proof
- The standard of proof in civil matters, including land matters, is on a balance of probabilities and does not shift even in the absence of rebuttal
- Costs follow the event and the successful party is ordinarily entitled to costs
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Defendant as the Plaintiffs failed to prove their case in respect of the Plaint dated 24th July, 2023, with costs to the Defendant
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Defendant, to be borne by the Plaintiffs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes in Bamburi, Mombasa County; the Defendant admitted the jurisdiction of the Court
Relief refused
#Declaration that the plaintiffs are jointly the lawful beneficial owners of six (6) acres at Kashani, Mombasa
Plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence or produce a sale agreement to prove ownership on a balance of probabilities
Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from entering, remaining or selling any portion of the six (6) acres at Kashani, Bamburi
Claim not proved; pleadings without evidence remain mere allegations
Order directing the Land Registrar and District Land Surveyor Mombasa to survey and issue title deed for six (6) acres to the plaintiffs
Plaintiffs did not prove purchase or beneficial ownership of the six acres claimed
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the Defendant, to be borne by the Plaintiffs
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.
That Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Defendant as the Plaintifis have failed to prove their case in respect to the Plaint dated 24th July, 2023 with costs to the Defendant.
That cost of the suit to be awarded to the Defendant to be borne by Plaintifi.
tracing ownership of unregistered land is dependent on tracing the root of title
It is trite law that where a party fails to call evidence in support of its case, that party's pleadings remain mere statements of facts
The standard of proof in a civil case, on a balance of probabilities, does not change even in the absence of a rebuttal by the other side.
the Plaintifis did not show or produce anything before court to show that there was a covenant of sale and purchase of the suit land
Issues in the judgment
#The court states it crafted four issues for determination but lists only three
The court states the parties had fully complied with Order 11 but the plaintiffs closed their case without calling any witnesses
DW-1's evidence on the first sale agreement is internally inconsistent on whether it covered 6 acres for Kshs. 50,000/- and was cancelled
Costs provision is cited as 'Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules Cap. 21' although Cap. 21 is the Civil Procedure Act, not the Rules
The disposition grants judgment 'in favour of the Defendant' on a plaintiffs' suit without a counterclaim, rather than simply dismissing the suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karisa & 12 others (Suing thro. the Estate of Charo Karisa who died Intestate) v Rimba (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Plaint dated 24th July, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5168/eng@2025-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.