Osman v Ngomo Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1313 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant wrongfully blocked the plaintiff's access to Magongo Road
No. The alleged road reserve was not proved; the government acquired only about 0.004 ha of plot 1096, and both surveyors agreed there was no official access road at the point claimed. The plaintiff has an access route through plot 4932 offered by the defendant.
The plaintiff's surveyor obtained no drawings from Kenya National Highways Authority and conceded the acquired portion was very small. Evidence showed plot 1096 was subdivided into plots 4932, 4935 and a remainder 1096/R. Both surveyors agreed there was no official access at the claimed point. The defendant allowed access through plot 4932, and the plaintiff's real grievance was that this route was narrow, longer and inconvenient, which cannot justify overriding the neighbour's property rights.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an easement over the defendant's property on the doctrine of necessity
No. Necessity was not established since the plaintiff has an existing access used by other plot owners in the same position.
The court adopted Black's Law Dictionary definitions of easement and access easement. An easement of necessity requires that the claimant have no other means of access. Here the plaintiff's plot does not abut Magongo Road, and he is not the only plot owner behind plot 1096; other owners use the same route through plot 4932. His dissatisfaction was with the convenience of the route, not its absence, so the doctrine of necessity was not made out.
Whether the plaintiff proved his claim and is entitled to the reliefs sought
The claim failed on a balance of probabilities and all reliefs were refused.
Having found no proved road reserve or wrongful blockage and no entitlement to an easement of necessity, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities, and consequently none of the reliefs in the plaint, including injunctions and damages, could issue.
Costs
Costs were awarded to the successful defendant following the event.
Relying on the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Hussein Janmohamed decision, the court applied the general rule that a successful party ordinarily gets costs and found no good reason to depart from it.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff has no right in law to dictate where an access road should be located on a neighbour's property; convenience does not override property rights
- An easement of necessity is unavailable where the claimant already has an access to his plot, even if inconvenient
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The defendant is awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance civil suit under the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Civil Procedure Rules (Order 15 Rule 2); Environment and Land Court original jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osman v Ngomo Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1313 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1313/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.