Murugami v Githitu & another (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1394 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court upheld a Wang'uru magistrate's decision on plot boundaries, confirming that an unchallenged joint expert report on land location carries decisive weight.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Weight of joint expert report on plot identification
The joint report by the County Physical Planner and County Surveyor was procedurally sound and unchallenged; it established that the disputed site was not Plot 38, though it could not confirm the site was Plot A412
The experts conducted a joint site visit in the presence of both parties. Their findings that Plot 38 was identifiable on the PDP and lay elsewhere, and that the disputed site was not Plot 38, were not challenged by cross-examination or contrary expert evidence. Such a report carries substantial probative weight unless discredited, so the trial court was entitled to rely on it.
Whether the 1st Respondent proved his claim
The 1st Respondent's occupation and administrative recognition (approved plans, rates payment, census verification) sufficed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities
The court found the indicators of possession and administrative recognition significant, and since the expert report placed the Appellant's Plot 38 on a different site, there was no reason to fault the trial magistrate's finding in favour of the 1st Respondent. The magistrate's reference to 'balance of convenience' was a misstatement but did not affect the outcome.
The Appellant's counterclaim for trespass
The counterclaim failed; ownership of Plot 38 was proved but not that the 1st Respondent entered or interfered with that specific plot
The expert report confirmed Plot 38 was identifiable on the PDP but not on the disputed ground. Without proof that the 1st Respondent occupied her parcel, a declaration of trespass could not issue. Trespass is fact-specific and the burden of proving entry onto the owned land was not discharged.
Trial court's costs discretion
The award of costs to the successful litigant was proper under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Costs follow the event unless there is good reason to depart. The burden lies on the party challenging a costs order to show improper, capricious or wrong-principled exercise of discretion. The trial court found the 1st Respondent successful, and that conclusion was confirmed on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A jointly prepared expert report by competent statutory office holders carries substantial probative weight unless discredited
- Trespass is fact-specific and the claimant must show the impugned entry occurred on land the claimant owns or possesses
- Costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise orders
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is without merit and is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The judgment of the learned trial magistrate delivered on 22nd August 2023 in Wang'uru PM ELC Case No. 95 of 2014 is hereby upheld
- 3.The 1st Respondent is awarded costs in this appeal
- On appeal from
- Wang'uru Principal Magistrate's Court
- PM ELC Case No. 95 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Environment and Land Court from a magistrates' court land decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murugami v Githitu & another (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kerugoya ELCLA No. E017 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1394/eng@2026-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.