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 judgment· [2026] KEELC 656 (KLR)

Green Vine Heights Limited & others v Kazungu & 63 others (Environment and Land Case E069 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 656 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 February 2026
YAY. M. Angima
1,405 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court confirmed landowners can win trespass damages without proving actual loss, awarding eviction plus Kshs. 200,000 against absentee defendants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a plaint dated 29 July 2024, five plaintiffs — Green Vine Heights Limited as 1st plaintiff and four individuals as 2nd to 5th plaintiffs — sued the defendants over Plot Nos. 20953/I/MN, 20959/I/MN and 20960/I/MN in Mombasa County. They sought declarations of ownership, a permanent injunction, vacant possession, damages/mesne profits and costs, alleging that in June 2024 the defendants forcibly entered the suit properties, erected semi-permanent structures, and re-occupied them after a July 2024 police-assisted eviction despite demand and notice. The defendants were served by substituted service through publication in the Daily Nation but neither entered appearance nor filed defences. At trial the plaintiffs called two witnesses — Hassan Mzee Khamis, a director of the 1st plaintiff, and Rehema Haji Iddi, the 5th plaintiff — whose evidence mirrored the plaint. Certificates of official search confirmed the 1st plaintiff as registered proprietor of two plots and the 2nd–5th plaintiffs as joint proprietors of the third; photographs evidenced the defendants' structures. The court, framed with whether the plaintiffs had proved their claim to the required standard, found on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiffs are registered proprietors entitled to possession and that the defendants are trespassers. Relying on Kamoye v Tipango and the authorities extracted therein, the court held trespass actionable per se and, absent proof of particular damage, awarded Kshs. 200,000 instead of the Kshs. 500,000 sought. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs with declarations, eviction, permanent injunction, damages and costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiffs proved ownership and trespass to the required standard

Holding

Plaintiffs proved registered ownership via official searches and defendants, who never appeared or filed a defence, tendered no evidence; trespass established on a balance of probabilities

Reasoning

Certificates of official search showed the 1st plaintiff as registered proprietor of two plots and the 2nd–5th plaintiffs as joint proprietors of the third. Photographs evidenced the defendants' structures. The defendants, though served by substituted service, entered no appearance and adduced no evidence to demonstrate any right, claim or interest over the suit properties.

p. 2
02

Measure of general damages for trespass

Holding

Trespass is actionable per se; Kshs. 200,000 awarded as sufficient compensation absent proof of particular damage

Reasoning

Following Kamoye v Tipango and the authorities it extracts (Philip Ayaya Aluchio and Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa), the court held trespass actionable per se without proof of damage. Since the plaintiffs proved only violation of property rights and no quantifiable loss, a conventional award of Kshs. 200,000 was considered sufficient compensation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Trespass to land is actionable per se and no proof of particular damage is necessary for an award of general damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the 1st plaintiff Green Vine Heights Limited is the absolute owner of Plot No. 20953/I/MN and 20959/I/MN
  2. 2.Declaration that Maimuna Mzee Khamis, Khamis Mzee Khamis, Salama Khamis Mzee and Rehema Haji Iddi are absolute owners of Plot No. 20960/I/MN
  3. 3.Order for eviction of the defendants from Plot Nos. 20953/I/MN, 20959/I/MN and 20960/I/MN
  4. 4.Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from re-entering or interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit properties
  5. 5.General damages of Kshs. 200,000 awarded against the defendants jointly and severally
  6. 6.Plaintiffs awarded costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Cases cited (5)

  • Kamoye v Tipango & 2 Others
    (Environment & Land Case E011 of 2023) (2024) KEELC 4227 (KLR) (14 May 2024)
  • Hebron Orucho Gisebe & 2 Others v Joseph Ombura Gisebe & Another
    [2022] KEELC 1348 (KLR)
  • Philip Ayaya Aluchio v Crispinus Ngayo
    [2014] eKLR
  • Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa v KP & LC Limited & Another
    (2013) eKLR
  • Hostler v Green Park Development Co.
    986 S.W 2d 500 (Mo. App. 1999)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over a claim for declarations, eviction, injunction and damages for trespass to land within Mombasa County

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Green Vine Heights Limited & others v Kazungu & 63 others (Environment and Land Case E069 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 656 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/656/eng@2026-02-12

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