Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case (Eldoret) - Plaint dated 6th April, 2020 (number not stated in judgment)· [2026] KEELC 498 (KLR)

Songok & 5 others v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment and Land Case 17 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 498 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 February 2026
CYC.K. Yano
4,036 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court dismissed landowners' trespass claim against Uasin Gishu County because conflicting survey evidence failed to prove the road encroached on their plots.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, purchasers and occupiers of parcels within Tapsagoi Settlement Scheme in Uasin Gishu County, sued the County Government of Uasin Gishu seeking a permanent injunction, a declaration of ownership, and general damages for trespass, alleging that in March 2020 the County forceifully entered their land, dug trenches, destroyed beacons and began constructing a road without their consent. The Defendant filed no statement of defence but called a Land Surveyor from the Ministry of Lands (DW1), whose reports (Dexh. 1 and Dexh. 2(a) and (b)) concluded that a public road officially exists on the ground and on the maps, that it does not encroach on the suit lands, and that the Plaintiffs' parcels have instead encroached onto the public road by varying extents. The Plaintiffs' independent surveyor (PW2) confirmed the existence of a public road but maintained that it is 15 metres wide on the maps, whereas the County demarcated 18 metres; he opined that any extra width should be acquired through compulsory acquisition under the Land Act, 2012. Framing three issues (trespass, entitlement to reliefs, and costs), the court found that the conflicting survey evidence left the road's actual width and position uncertain, the defence reports did not state the width or methodology, and the Plaintiffs had therefore failed to discharge the burden of proving trespass. The plaint was dismissed in its entirety, but the court directed the Land Registrar, County Surveyor and an independent surveyor for the Plaintiffs to conduct a joint site visit within 30 days to establish the actual measurement and position of the public road against the relevant maps. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiffs' suit properties by constructing the public road

Holding

Trespass not proved; Plaintiffs did not discharge their burden

Reasoning

Both parties' survey reports confirmed existence of a public road. PW2 put the width at 15 metres per the maps, while DW1 claimed 18 metres but his reports did not state the width, he did not produce the RIM or survey plan, did not read existing beacons and did not document his methodology. The defence map showed encroachments by the Plaintiffs' parcels onto the road in places. The court found the evidence inconclusive on trespass.

p. 8
02

Entitlement to reliefs (injunction, declaration, damages)

Holding

Reliefs refused following failure to prove trespass

Reasoning

Having found trespass unproved, the court held the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs sought. However, noting the conflicting measurements of the public road, the court directed a joint site visit by the Land Registrar, County Surveyor and an independent surveyor for the Plaintiffs to establish the actual measurement and position of the road.

p. 8
03

Costs

Holding

Each party to bear own costs despite general rule favouring the successful party

Reasoning

Although a successful party ordinarily gets costs, the court in its discretion departed from that rule given the nature and circumstances of the boundary/road-width dispute, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging trespass must prove it to the required standard; where rival survey reports leave the road width/position uncertain, trespass cannot be concluded
  • If the county government requires more than the mapped 15-metre road width, it must undertake compulsory land acquisition under the Land Act, 2012

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaint dated 6th April, 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Land Registrar, County Surveyor and an Independent Surveyor appointed by the Plaintiffs to visit the site (Tapsagoi Settlement Scheme) within 30 days from the date of the judgment
  3. 3.The purpose of the site visit is to determine and establish the actual measurement and position of the public road on the ground as provided in the relevant maps
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Trespass Act, Cap 294Section 3(1)
  • Land Actcompulsory land acquisition provisions
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes ( plaint seeking injunction, declaration and damages for trespass)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Songok & 5 others v County Government of Uasin Gishu (Environment and Land Case 17 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case (Eldoret) - Plaint dated 6th April, 2020 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/498/eng@2026-02-05

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