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 (plaint dated 8th June 2016, amended 13/5/2024)· [2025] KEELC 7864 (KLR)

Salamba & 2 others (Suing as Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God (P.A.G)) v Misigo & 3 others (Suing as Trustees of Calvary Pentecostal Assemblies of God) (Environment and Land Case 612 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7864 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2025
AOA. Omollo
3,241 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court confirmed a church's land title and ordered a rival church to remove its structures within 120 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, registered trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God Kangemi, sued the Defendants over L.R. No.23240 (IR No.124997), Nairobi, allotted to them in 1998, alleging that on 28th May 2016 the Defendants occupied part of the land and erected temporary structures. They sought an injunction, a declaration of ownership, general damages and costs. The 1st-3rd Defendants denied the claim and demanded boundary re-establishment. The 4th Defendant (Calvary PAG) claimed both churches fall under the PAG constitution, requiring internal arbitration before suit, that the Plaintiff's title was defective owing to a size discrepancy between the allotment letter (0.012 ha) and title (1.012 ha), and that it occupied riparian land given by the local administration. The court framed four issues: exhaustion, validity of title, trespass, and reliefs. It held the exhaustion argument failed for want of evidence of affiliation; the title was valid, as no fraud or illegality was pleaded per Order 2 Rule 10, and the size discrepancy did not vitiate it; trespass was proved, the riparian and survey evidence being unsupported and lacking a sketch map. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs jointly and severally: an injunction restraining all Defendants from the suit land, 120 days for the 4th Defendant to remove its structures, and costs to the Plaintiffs payable by the 4th Defendant. General damages, though sought, were not awarded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Doctrine of exhaustion / internal church arbitration

Holding

The suit does not offend the exhaustion doctrine because the 4th Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff and it are governed by the same PAG constitution providing for internal arbitration

Reasoning

The copy of the PAG constitution produced contained no list of member churches, and the 4th Defendant's sole witness produced no correspondence or document from headquarters corroborating the alleged affiliation. Without evidence linking the Plaintiff to the internal dispute resolution mechanism, the submissions on exhaustion were unsupported.

p. 5
02

Validity of the Plaintiff's title

Holding

The Plaintiff's registered title is valid and indefeasible; the size discrepancy between the allotment letter and title deed, explained as a typing error, does not vitiate it

Reasoning

Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act makes a certificate of title prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on pleaded and proved fraud or illegality. No counterclaim or particulars of fraud were pleaded. The Plaintiff produced a registered title deed and deed plan No. 217395 whose authenticity was never rebutted, satisfying Munyu Maina.

p. 6
03

Trespass by the Defendants

Holding

Trespass proved against the Defendants on a balance of probabilities; the riparian land claim was unsupported by documentary or survey evidence

Reasoning

Photographic evidence showed structures on the suit land. The 4th Defendant's survey report lacked a sketch map, did not state whether the Plaintiff was present, and did not locate the structures relative to the parcel. The claim of allocation by 'local administration' was unsubstantiated, and 1st-3rd Defendants gave no evidence.

p. 6
04

Riparian reserve encroachment

Holding

Not before the court; the allegation was uncorroborated and left to relevant institutions

Reasoning

The court found the riparian allegation lacking documentary support and held the question of whether the title encroaches on riparian reserve is for the relevant institutions when marking out reserves, not a ground to annul title in this suit.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A defendant who alleges that parties are bound by a constitution providing internal dispute resolution bears the burden of proving that affiliation and the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine
  • Fraud vitiating a title must be specifically pleaded with particulars; allegations raised only in evidence without pleading do not comply with Order 2 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • A discrepancy between the size in an allotment letter and that in a registered title, absent pleaded fraud or rebuttal, is not sufficient to vitiate the title
  • Where structures are shown to exist on land and the intruder produces no survey or boundary re-establishment proving they fall outside the parcel, the presumption favours the registered proprietor's boundary
  • Alienation of land without authority from the Commissioner of Lands or other legally empowered officer is null and void

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and invitees from entering upon, trespassing, constructing, selling, alienating, occupying or in any way interfering with L.R. No.23240 (JR No.124997) in Nairobi
  2. 2.The 4th Defendant granted 120 days from the date of judgment to remove their offending structures from the suit parcel L.R. No.23240
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs to be paid by the 4th Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 24, 25, 26(1) and 26(1)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 2 Rule 10
  • Trespass Act (Cap 294)Section 3(1)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(c)
  • Constitution of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God KenyaArticles 18-22

Cases cited (12)

  • Ricks v Chebet & Another
    (ELC Case E232 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 4247 (KLR)
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Sherifi Molana Habib
    [2018] eKLR
  • Wreck Motors Enterprises v Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others
    (1997) eKLR / [1997] KECA 391 (KLR)
  • Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina
    [2013] eKLR
  • Daudi Kiptugen v Commissioner of Lands & 4 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others
    [2023] KESC 30 (KLR)
  • Torino Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General
    [2023] KESC 79 (KLR)
  • Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume
    [1992] KLR
  • Geofrey Muthiga Kabiru & 2 Others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Republic v Firearms Licensing Board & Another ex parte Jimi Wanjigi
    [2019] eKLR
  • Jeremiah Memba Ocharo v Evaline Njoka & 3 Others
    (Const. Petition No. 169 of 2020)
  • Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Kibotu Limited
    [2019] KEELC 113 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land LR No.23240 (IR No.124997), Nairobi (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Salamba & 2 others (Suing as Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God (P.A.G)) v Misigo & 3 others (Suing as Trustees of Calvary Pentecostal Assemblies of God) (Environment and Land Case 612 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7864 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 8th June 2016, amended 13/5/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7864/eng@2025-11-06

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