Sweet Pie Company Limited v Randu (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8516 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner with a registered title won damages and a permanent injunction after a man who claimed ownership but had no documents trespassed and demolished his wall.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff proved ownership of the suit property
Yes. The Plaintiff held the registered Certificate of Title to Chembe/Kibabamshe/354, which the Defendant never disputed by producing any title of his own; the NLC Gazette Notice of 2017 further confirmed the Plaintiff's ownership, and the Defendant never challenged that report.
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act makes a Certificate of Title prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership. Copies of titles produced by both parties identified the Plaintiff as registered owner. The Defendant produced no certificate of title or official search, relying only on a committee letter which cannot override a Certificate of Title. The 2017 NLC determination in the Plaintiff's favour was never challenged in court, reinforcing indefeasibility of the Plaintiff's title.
Whether the Defendant trespassed on the suit property
Yes. On July 19, 2023 the Defendant invaded the property with others and demolished part of the perimeter wall, without any lawful justification.
The Plaintiff, as registered owner, had a protected right to property under Article 40. Photographic evidence of the demolished wall, the police report (OB No. 06/21/07/2023), and the chief's letter established the trespass, and PW1's eyewitness testimony was unchallenged. The Defendant asserted ownership but never denied the trespass allegations, thereby taking the law into his own hands.
What general damages are payable for the trespass
Kshs 500,000 awarded, following the measure of the difference in property value after trespass or cost of restoration, whichever is less; trespass being actionable per se, no proof of specific loss was required.
Trespass is actionable per se, so damages need no proof of actual loss. Comparing comparable ELC awards (Nakuru Industries - Kshs 500,000; Kennedy J Wamalwa - Kshs 200,000), the court noted the Defendant enlisted goons to invade and demolish the perimeter wall. It awarded Kshs 500,000 as appropriate general damages in the circumstances.
Whether the Defendant's counterclaim was merited
No. The counterclaim seeking a declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, revocation of the Plaintiff's title and reconstruction of the Green Card was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
Fraud must be distinctly pleaded with particulars and strictly proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities. The Defendant's three-paragraph counterclaim contained no particulars of fraud or forgery; even his own witnesses confirmed no such details were pleaded. He produced no title documents, admitted living two hours away, and never challenged the NLC report clearing the Plaintiff. The counterclaim was therefore stillborn.
Legal principles established
#- A Certificate of Title under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corruption
- Trespass to land is actionable per se; the proper plaintiff is the title holder or person in possession at the time of the trespass
- Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and strictly proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities
- A party's registered title entitles them to the rights and privileges of a registered proprietor under Article 40 of the Constitution where no fraud is demonstrated
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, employees, servants, or anyone else from entering, trespassing into, or otherwise dealing with or interfering in any manner with the Plaintiff's occupation, access, use, or peaceful possession of the suit property
- 2.General damages for trespass of Kshs 500,000/= awarded to the Plaintiff
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff
- 4.The Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land title and trespass; title determination under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sweet Pie Company Limited v Randu (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8516 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8516/eng@2025-11-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.