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 as provided· [2025] KEELC 7338 (KLR)

Butasi & another v Njuguna & another (Environment and Land Case 15 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7338 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 October 2025
LKL. KOMINGOI
2,787 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kajiado Environment and Land Court confirmed a landowner's title and awarded Kshs. 500,000 because he was evicted without the three months' notice Kenyan law requires.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, spouses, claimed to be registered owners of LR Kajiado/Kisaju/1974 and 1975, purchased in 1999-2000 from the late Keton Ole Koponi Parsena following a resurvey and subdivision of parcel 1620. They alleged the 1st Defendant unlawfully evicted the 1st Plaintiff in March 2020, demolishing his house, and sought a declaration of proprietorship, damages for unlawful eviction, refund of rent, costs and interest. The 1st Defendant counterclaimed, contending the plaintiffs had misled the Land Registrar through a mutation contrary to the 1997 survey, and sought eviction, vacant possession of parcel 3544 and mesne profits. The 2nd Defendant (the vendor's estate's position) did not enter appearance. The court framed four issues: ownership of parcel 1975, entitlement to the plaintiff's prayers, entitlement to the counterclaim prayers, and costs. It found titles 1974 and 1975 remained uncancelled and lawful, that the 1st Defendant produced no transfer or sale agreement showing how the Shelter Women Group acquired parcel 1619 or its true acreage, and that she failed to prove encroachment. The counterclaim was dismissed. The court found the eviction was done without the notice required under Section 152E of the Land Act, following Hasmukh Raichand Shah v Piave Quarry Limited, and awarded general damages of Kshs. 500,000. The claim for rent refund failed as unproved special damage. Judgment was entered for the 1st Plaintiff with a declaration of ownership, damages, and costs in the suit with interest. The 2nd Plaintiff's claim was effectively not pursued, having been struck out on her own motion.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Plaintiff proved ownership of Kajiado/Kisaju/1975

Holding

He did; the titles 1974 and 1975 remain uncancelled and emanate from lawful resurvey and subdivision of parcel 1620

Reasoning

The court found that the plaintiff purchased portions by valid agreements, a resurvey was confirmed by the District Surveyor in 2000, and the resultant titles 1974 and 1975 were registered in the plaintiffs' names. The court criticised the earlier survey report recommendation to revert to the 1997 positions as it ignored these subsisting titles. The 1st Defendant did not demonstrate encroachment.

p. 5
02

Whether the 1st Defendant proved her counterclaim

Holding

Counterclaim dismissed for failure to prove encroachment or the true acreage of parcel 1619

Reasoning

The 1st Defendant produced no sale agreement or transfer from Keton Ole Koponi Parsena to the Shelter Women Group of Kenya, and could not establish the actual acreage of parcel 1619. The court held it could not find encroachment where the acreage of her parcel was itself undefined, and dismissed the counterclaim.

p. 5
03

Whether the 1st Plaintiff was unlawfully evicted and entitled to damages

Holding

Yes; eviction without notice was unlawful and general damages of Kshs. 500,000 awarded

Reasoning

The court found the plaintiff was evicted and his house demolished without any notice, which would have been required even if he had encroached, per Section 152E of the Land Act as cited in Hasmukh Raichand Shah v Piave Quarry Limited. General damages of Kshs. 500,000 were assessed as reasonable. The claim for rent refund as special damage failed for want of proof.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered proprietor's title is protected under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act
  • Notice to vacate must be issued not less than three months before the intended date of eviction under Section 152E of the Land Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of Kajiado/Kisaju/1975
  2. 2.General damages of Kshs. 500,000/= for unlawful eviction
  3. 3.Costs to be in the suit, with interest

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 18, 24, 25, 26
  • Land Registration (General) RegulationsRegulation 65
  • Land ActSection 152E
  • Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 28Section 152E

Cases cited (5)

  • Margaret Njeri Wachira vs Eliud Waweru Njenga
    [2018] eKLR
  • Rhoda S. Kiilu vs Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Ltd
    null
  • Ringera vs Muhindi
    [2022] KEELC 2481 (KLR)
  • Hasmukh Raichand Shah & another v Piave Quarry Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • George Kamau Macharia v Dexka Limited
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction over transferred suit from the lower court (Environment and Land Court, transferred suit; no specific provision cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Butasi & another v Njuguna & another (Environment and Land Case 15 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7338 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7338/eng@2025-10-23

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