Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7209 (KLR)

Langata Community & 13 others v Optiven Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 8 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7209 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 October 2025
LKL. Komingoi
1,757 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Fourteen plaintiffs sued two defendants over the 'Kilimo Tujijenge' agribusiness investment, claiming that under contracts signed between July 2017 and May 2018 they bought plots of land with managed greenhouses that were to yield seasonal profits of Kshs. 175,000. They alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation and fraud after the 2nd Defendant cancelled the contract on 27th March 2018 without refunding their money, and sought special damages of Kshs. 13,340,000, lost income of Kshs. 48,300,000, general damages, mesne profits, costs and interest. The 1st Defendant denied being in a joint venture with the 2nd Defendant or owing any obligations to construct greenhouses; the 2nd Defendant did not enter appearance despite service. At the hearing only the plaintiffs testified through PW1, who produced an offer letter from the 1st Defendant, receipts and correspondence confirming payment of Kshs. 1,740,000 for six greenhouses, and the 2nd Defendant's cancellation letter. Framing three issues, the court held that the plaintiffs proved their case on a balance of probabilities, found the two defendants were in partnership and jointly liable, and held the 2nd–9th and 11th–13th plaintiffs entitled to refunds of greenhouse purchase payments. However, it declined mesne profits for failure to specifically plead and prove them, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Samaki Industries v Kenya Ports Authority, and awarded only Kshs. 500,000 in general damages. Judgment was entered against the defendants jointly and severally for a refund of Kshs. 290,000 each, general damages of Kshs. 500,000, costs and interest.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether breach of the 'Kilimo Tujijenge' investment contracts was proved

Holding

Proved. The 1st Plaintiff paid for six greenhouses which were never delivered, and the 2nd Defendant cancelled the contract; the court also found the Defendants were in partnership.

Reasoning

The 1st Plaintiff produced an offer letter from the 1st Defendant, receipts and a letter confirming the 2nd Defendant received Kshs. 1,740,000 for six greenhouses, and the 2nd Defendant's letter of 27th March 2018 cancelling contracts with all investors. The 3rd July 2017 contract was between the 1st Plaintiff and both Defendants, establishing joint liability. The evidence was uncontroverted since the Defendants did not participate in the hearing.

p. 4
02

Whether general damages were payable

Holding

General damages of Kshs. 500,000 awarded for the loss suffered when the project failed

Reasoning

The court accepted the plaintiffs' submissions that they suffered loss when the project did not take off and considered Kshs. 500,000 a reasonable quantum of general damages, in addition to the refund of the investment sum.

p. 5
03

Which plaintiffs were entitled to relief

Holding

The 2nd–9th and 11th–13th plaintiffs were entitled to refund of greenhouse purchase payments; five plaintiffs had recorded consents with the 1st Defendant for specific sums

Reasoning

Only the 1st Plaintiff testified and produced documentary proof, but he testified on behalf of the others; the court nonetheless limited recovery for the other plaintiffs to the refund of the greenhouse purchase price rather than the full special damages claimed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • He who alleges must prove; the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side
  • Mesne profits must be specifically pleaded and proved as they are akin to special damages
  • Upon cancellation of a contract, the innocent party ought to be restored to their original position

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for each of the 1st, 2nd–9th, 11th–13th Plaintiffs against the Defendants jointly and severally
  2. 2.A refund of Kshs.290,000/= to each qualifying plaintiff
  3. 3.General damages of Kshs.500,000/=
  4. 4.Costs of the suit and interest
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit (contract/land dispute) filed by Plaint dated 27th April 2021

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Langata Community & 13 others v Optiven Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 8 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7209/eng@2025-10-15

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