Telengech v Lornho Agribusiness (EA) Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7494 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A land buyer in Uasin Gishu won permanent protection over his 37-acre farm after rivals tried to subdivide it without his consent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Res judicata
The suit is not res judicata. The former suit (ELC No. 308 of 2017, formerly HCCC No. 223 of 2000) was dismissed for non-attendance, hence not heard and finally determined; moreover, the cause of action (the 2021 attempted subdivision) arose after that dismissal.
All elements of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act must be satisfied conjunctively. The prior suit was dismissed for non-attendance on 25th July, 2018 and was never determined on its merits. Further, the present claim concerns events of November 2021, which were not and could not have been in issue in the earlier suit dismissed in 2018.
Limitation under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The limitation defence fails: it was not pleaded nor proved by evidence, and the 1st Defendant's execution and lodging of a transfer in the Plaintiff's favour in April 2025 amounts to acknowledgment of the claim.
The point was raised only in the 4th Defendant's submissions, which cannot substitute for evidence. The Land Registrar (DW3) testified that the 1st Defendant lodged transfers in favour of the Plaintiff in April 2025, effectively acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim over the land, thereby defeating the statutory bar.
Trespass
The 1st-5th Defendants and the 7th Defendant's officers trespassed. The Plaintiff is a beneficial owner entitled to immediate possession; the survey/subdivision exercise of 10/11/2021 proceeded without his knowledge or consent and without any instruction from the registered owner.
The Plaintiff paid for 37 Acres as evidenced by bank slips, receipts and the letter of 9th December, 2003; DW2 conceded parcel 1423 belongs to the Plaintiff; transfers were lodged in his favour. The survey letter of 3rd November, 2021 was not copied to the Plaintiff or the Land Registrar, and no boundary dispute was before the Registrar as required by Section 18 of the Land Registration Act.
Entitlement to reliefs
Permanent injunction, declaration of illegal interference and injunction against issuance of new titles granted; damages assessed at KShs. 200,000/- instead of the KShs. 600,000/- sought.
Having proved his beneficial interest and the trespass, the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. Since the land has not been subdivided and there are probably no new titles, that prayer is granted only in the event subdivision proceeds. Damages were moderated because the Defendants did not occupy the land for long and the Plaintiff is protected by the temporary injunction and caution.
Legal principles established
#- A dismissal for non-attendance is not a hearing and final determination on the merits, so it cannot found a plea of res judicata
- An issue of limitation raised for the first time in final submissions, without being pleaded or proved by evidence, amounts to trial by ambush and must fail
- A purchaser who has paid for land and whose transfer has been executed and lodged by the registered owner is a beneficial owner entitled to immediate possession and to sue for trespass
- Subdivision instructions must emanate from the registered owner; entry onto land to survey and subdivide without the occupier's knowledge or consent is trespass
- Under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act, the court cannot determine a boundary dispute before it is submitted to the Land Registrar
- Trespass to land is actionable per se; damages need not be proved, and the court has discretion to assess reasonable damages
Court orders
#- 1.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from entering, trespassing, leasing, or in any way dealing with the Plaintiff's parcel of land known as Soy/Soy Block 10 (Navillus)/1423, or on the resultant titles
- 2.In the event the Defendants proceed with the subdivision, an injunction restraining the issue of new title numbers over Soy/Soy Block 10 (Navillus)/1423 or consolidation thereof, and cancellation of any new title issued
- 3.A declaration that the interference by the Defendants with the plaintiff's ownership of title to Soy/Soy Block 10 (Navillus)/1423 is illegal and amounts to trespass
- 4.Damages for trespass of KShs. 200,000/- awarded to the Plaintiff
- 5.Costs of the suit and interest at court rates to be borne by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims (Plaint filed 26th January, 2022)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Telengech v Lornho Agribusiness (EA) Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7494 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of 2022 (Eldoret ELC; Plaint dated 26th January, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7494/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.