Chelule (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of the Late Chelule Chebunye - Deceased) v Chesang & 22 others; Chelule (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7095 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kericho dismissed a family land claim because the plaintiff could not prove the claimed plot sat on the specific parcel named in her documents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Plot No. 144 belongs to the estate of Chelule Chebonye (deceased) as situated on land parcel Molo South Block 2/11323 (Kirobon)
The court found the plaintiff proved allocation of Plot No. 144 to the deceased but failed to prove the nexus between the Plot and the parcel of land named in the confirmed grant, and declined to issue a declaration
The plaintiff produced an allocation letter for Plot No. 36 (later Plot No. 144), an extract of the register and a letter from the Chairman of Kirobon Farmers. However, she produced no title deed or official search for land parcel No. Molo South Block 2/11323 (Kirobon), and the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant did not reconcile with the claimed 20 acres. Applying sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, the burden was not discharged.
Whether the Defendants are trespassers
The claim for trespass failed because the plaintiff did not establish that Plot No. 144 is the land occupied by the Defendants
Trespass is an injury to a possessory right and the proper plaintiff is the person with title or possession. The 1st to 21st Defendants held sale agreements for portions of Molo South Keringet Block 2/17 Plot No. 17; the 22nd Defendant held a title deed for Molo South Keringet Block 2/854. The plaintiff could not link Plot No. 144 to either holding, so eviction and damages could not issue.
Whether the prayers in the Plaint should be granted
The declarations, eviction, injunction and damages were all refused in light of the failed proof of ownership and trespass
Since the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the specific land claimed and the trespass claim, the consequential prayers of eviction, permanent injunction and general damages could not stand. The suit was dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Defendants.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof lies on the party who alleges, on a balance of probabilities, and a court should not make findings on unpleaded matters or grant relief not sought in the pleadings
- The proper plaintiff in an action for trespass to land is the person who has title to it or was in possession at the time of the trespass
- Costs follow the event pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over disputes relating to land (Environment and Land Court); suit instituted by way of Plaint dated 2nd June, 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chelule (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of the Late Chelule Chebunye - Deceased) v Chesang & 22 others; Chelule (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7095 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7095/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.