Lake Basin Dvelopment Authority v Lake Agro Limited (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1302 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Siaya confirmed a titled landowner's rights, declaring an occupier a trespasser and awarding substantial rental damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property
Yes. The Plaintiff produced a title deed and green card showing registration on 4/12/2019, and under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act the title is conclusive proof of absolute and indefeasible ownership, unchallenged by evidence of fraud or irregularity.
The Plaintiff produced the title deed and green card showing it was registered as proprietor on 4/12/2019. Under section 24(1) of the Land Registration Act registration vests absolute ownership, and under section 26 the certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership challengeable only on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corruption. The Defendant challenged ownership in its defence but led no evidence to displace the title, so the title stood uncontroverted.
Whether the Defendant's occupation amounts to trespass
Yes. The Gazette Notice No. 350 of 2020 showed the Defendant took over Dominion Farms Limited's business on the same premises, the occupation was without the owner's permission, and PW1's evidence of continued occupation was uncontroverted.
The court drew on the Gazette Notice that the business of Dominion Farms Ltd was transferred to Lake Agro Limited on the same premises, and inferred that the takeover happened. The Defendant was never put in possession by the true owner, never sought consent after the notice to vacate, and its continued occupation was on the guise of the Gazette Notice. Consent status quo orders recorded on 3/03/2025 confirmed the Defendant was on the suit property pursuant to the Gazette Notice. Occupation without the owner's permission constituted trespass.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially. The declaration of trespass, eviction, permanent injunction and mesne profits were granted; general damages for trespass were refused because the court can grant either mesne profits or damages for trespass, not both.
Mesne profits were pleaded and proved through an uncontroverted valuation report assessing rental value of the whole property at Kshs. 7,200,000.00 per annum. Under Order 21 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules the court may award mesne profits with interest. Because the Court of Appeal in Christine Nyanchama Oanda holds that a party claiming both mesne profits and damages for trespass can only be granted one, the general damages prayer was declined. Eviction and permanent injunction followed from the finding of trespass and the constitutional right to property.
Who bears the costs of the suit
The Plaintiff, as costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The court invoked Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that costs follow the event, and having succeeded in the suit the Plaintiff was awarded costs of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Registration of a person as proprietor of land vests absolute ownership, and the certificate of title is prima facie evidence that the named proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner.
- Trespass is actionable per se; where trespass is proved, a party need not prove specific damage to be awarded general damages.
- Where a party claims both mesne profits and damages for trespass, the court can grant only one, not both.
- The failure of a defendant to adduce evidence does not lower the plaintiff's burden of proving its case on a balance of probability.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit property Siaya/Kadenge/899
- 2.The Defendant, its employees and/or agents and whomsoever claiming under the Defendant, to vacate the property Siaya/Kadenge/899 within 180 days of the judgment and in default eviction to issue in accordance with the law
- 3.Damages for mesne profits awarded at Kshs. 7,200,000.00/- per annum from April 2020 to the date of judgment, together with interest at court rates, payable within 180 days
- 4.An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its employees and/or agents from entering upon, taking possession of, trespassing on, alienating or interfering with the parcel Siaya/Kadenge/899
- 5.Liberty for the Defendant to enter into negotiations for a lease at the option and will of the Plaintiff and file terms of settlement within 180 days of the judgment, the full judgment to come into effect upon expiry of that period without further reference to the court
- 6.Costs awarded to the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over title to land and trespass; the judgment records 'The jurisdiction of this Court is however admitted.' No specific provision invoked.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lake Basin Dvelopment Authority v Lake Agro Limited (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1302 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Siaya ELC Suit No. (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1302/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.