Hassan v Ministry of Lands Mandera County & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6155 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

23 September 2025

JMJ. M. Mutungi

1,896 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya against the judgment of Hon. Peter Wasike (SRM) in Mandera SPMCC No. 12 of 2015 delivered on 11th July 2024, in which the Appellant, as plaintiff, failed to prove ownership of Plot No. 2701 Shafshafey in Mandera County and the suit was dismissed, as was the 3rd Respondent's unprosecuted counterclaim. The Appellant raised nine grounds attacking the magistrate's evaluation of the evidence, contending his exhibits proved ownership and that the plaintiff's case was uncontroverted. He sought the judgment be set aside and substituted with eviction of the 3rd Respondent and mesne profits for trespass. The 1st and 2nd Respondents urged that the Appellant had not discharged the evidential burden under Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act. The appeal was canvassed by written submissions. Applying the Selle principle, the court re-evaluated the evidence and found no allotment letter or Part Development Plan was produced to establish ownership. County records, through a letter by the County Chief Officer of Lands, showed the plot lay within an informal settlement whose exact location could not be ascertained and whose details were not captured digitally. Holding that a court cannot declare ownership of a plot whose origin is unestablished, the court found the magistrate had properly evaluated the evidence and reached the right decision. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Key legal issues

Proof of ownership of Plot No. 2701 Shafshafey

Holding

The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving he was the legal and registered owner; no letter of allotment or Part Development Plan was produced and the plot's location could not be ascertained from the county records

Reasoning

The court reviewed the evidence before the trial court, including the County Chief Officer of Lands' letter stating the plot was within an informal settlement whose exact location could not be ascertained and whose details were not in the digital system. With no allotment letter or PDP, the claim of registered ownership was unproven, so the dismissal was justified.

p. 4

Duty of a first appellate court

Holding

The first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and may reach its own conclusions, following Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd

Reasoning

As a first appeal, the court was obliged to reconsider the evidence tendered before the trial magistrate without being bound by the factual findings, guided by the Selle principle, and satisfied itself that the magistrate's evaluation and conclusion were correct.

p. 3

Consequences of failure to prove ownership

Holding

Since ownership was not proved, the declaratory, injunction and eviction reliefs could not issue

Reasoning

The claim was pleaded as one of legal and registered ownership, but the evidence and submissions pointed to a claim founded on trust which was never pleaded. Having failed at the foundational step of proving ownership, the ancillary remedies of declaration, injunction, eviction and demolition could not follow.

p. 4

Legal principles established

In a first appeal, the court is under a duty to re-evaluate the evidence afresh and is not bound by the trial court's findings of fact
The legal burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue, per Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act
A court cannot declare ownership of a plot whose origin and exact location have not been established

Court orders

1.The Appeal is dismissed
2.Costs of the Appeal awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents

Authorities

Legislation

Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of KenyaSections 107, 108 and 109
Repealed Constitution of KenyaSections 114, 115 and 116 (and 115(2))

Cases cited (4)

Bahola Mkahndi –vs- Michael Seth Kaseme & 2 Others
(2013) eKLR
Anne Wambui Nderitu –vs- Joseph Kiprono Ropkoi & Another
(2005) 1 EA 334
Evans Nyakwama –vs- Cleophas Bwana Ongaro
(2015) eKLR
Selle & Another –vs- Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & Others
(1968) EA 123

On appeal from: Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Mandera; Mandera SPMCC No. 12 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked: First appeal to the Environment and Land Court from the subordinate court

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hassan v Ministry of Lands Mandera County & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6155 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mandera SPMCC No. 12 of 2015 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6155/eng@2025-09-23

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