Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNanyuki ELC Case (plaint dated 11.3.2024, amended 4.4.2024)· [2026] KEELC 1238 (KLR)

Azam Motoring Logistics Ltd v Lolmodooni & 2 others (Land Case E006 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1238 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 February 2026
719 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed that even when a land case is undefended, the owner must still prove ownership — and a registered title plus trespass photos were enough to win a permanent injunction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, claiming to be the registered owner of LR/Sipili Donyoloip Block 1/1960 (Laikipia) having purchased it from one Edmund Muturi and obtained title on 18.10.2023, sued the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing on, harassing or interfering with its ownership and quiet possession of the land, plus costs. The plaintiff alleged that from 14.1.2024 the defendants trespassed, cut down trees and commenced ploughing, and that a report to Ol Moran police station did not stop them. The defendants did not file pleadings, and the suit proceeded as a formal proof. PW1, Christopher Kimathi, the plaintiff's legal manager, adopted his witness statement and produced exhibits P-Exh 1-10, tracing the title from Xplico Insurance Co. (registered 18.12.2014) to Edmund Muturi (26.4.2018) and then to the plaintiff, and testifying that the trespass caused the plaintiff to breach an investment contract for free range goat breeding with investors from Doha, Qatar. In the amended plaint the claims for special, general and punitive damages were abandoned, leaving only the injunction and costs. Applying section 107 of the Evidence Act and authorities on proof, the court held that even in formal proof the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its case. The title documents established the plaintiff as the lawfully registered owner entitled to enjoyment of the land free of other interests under section 25 of the Land Registration Act, and photographs showed the land being ploughed. The court found the plaintiff's legal right established and infringed, proved the case on a balance of probabilities, and allowed the claim in terms of the amended plaint with costs. Dated, signed and delivered at Nanyuki on 25 February 2026 by Lucy N. Mbugua, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff, as registered proprietor, proved entitlement to a permanent injunction against the defendants who trespassed on the suit land

Holding

The plaintiff proved its case on a balance of probabilities; the chain of title from Xplico Insurance to Edmund Muturi to the plaintiff was established by the title documents, and photographs showed the land being ploughed, establishing infringement of a legal right. The claim was allowed in terms of the amended plaint with costs.

Reasoning

Relying on section 107 of the Evidence Act and authorities on proof, the court held that even in formal proof the plaintiff must establish its facts. A perusal of the title documents confirmed ownership through Xplico Insurance, Edmund Muturi and then the plaintiff. Section 25 of the Land Registration Act entitles the registered owner to enjoyment of the land free of other interests. Photographs showed ploughing on the land, corroborating trespass, so the right claimed was established and infringed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Even where a suit proceeds as formal proof, the plaintiff bears the legal burden of proving its case
  • A registered owner is entitled to enjoy land free from all other interests except those provided for by statute under section 25 of the Land Registration Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Plaintiff's claim allowed in terms of the amended plaint, including the permanent injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, their agents, employees, servants or anybody acting on their behalf from trespassing on, harassing or interfering with the plaintiff's quiet possession, ownership, occupation and use of LR No. Sipili Donyoloip Block 1/1960 (Laikipia)
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSection 107(1) and (2)
  • Land Registration ActSection 25

Cases cited (3)

  • Samson S. Maitai & another v African Safari Club Limited & Another
    [2010] eKLR
  • Kipkebe Limited v Peterson Ondieki Tai
    [2016] eKLR
  • Jennifer Nyambura Kamau v Humphrey Mbaka Nandi
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute concerning title to and trespass on land (Land Registration Act, section 25; Evidence Act, section 107)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Azam Motoring Logistics Ltd v Lolmodooni & 2 others (Land Case E006 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1238 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nanyuki ELC Case (plaint dated 11.3.2024, amended 4.4.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1238/eng@2026-02-25

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