Koyopel v Lomukerang & another (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1814 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner won Kshs 5 million in damages after the court ruled a buyer who skipped due diligence cannot keep structures built on someone else's land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proof of trespass
The plaintiff, as registered owner since 1993, proved trespass; the 1st defendant admitted entry and erection of structures and had no justification
Trespass requires proof of the right to immediate and exclusive possession, wrongfully violated. The plaintiff produced a title deed issued 4/1/1993 with no restriction registered against it. The 1st defendant admitted entering and erecting a permanent structure, relying on a purchase of Plot B1 from one Regina Naliaka, but produced no evidence of the plot's allocation, registration or approved building plans. The 2nd defendant's go-ahead letter gave no legal justification.
Ownership of Plot No. B1 and defence of reserved public land
The defendants failed to prove Plot B1 existed as legally allocated reserved public land; the plaintiff's ownership was not impeached
The defendants alleged the plot fell within reserved public utility land set apart from the plaintiff's land. Setting apart trust land was an intricate statutory process requiring a county council meeting, PDP, gazettement, cadastral survey and allotment documents. None were availed. The sale agreement did not define coordinates or registration status, was not executed by the head lessor, and no transfer approval or allotment letter existed.
Bona fide purchaser for value defence
The 1st defendant failed the due diligence test and cannot rely on the innocent purchaser doctrine
The sale agreement lacked coordinates, measurements, registration status, and there was no due diligence with the County Government to ascertain allocation, registered owner or rates. The seller had no letters of administration. Where the root of title is challenged, an innocent purchaser defence fails, and where allocation of public land is irregular the doctrine cannot protect the purchaser.
Legal principles established
#- A title document is not sufficient proof of ownership where the origin of that title has been challenged; the holder must show the acquisition process was legal and procedural
- Trespass is actionable per se without proof of damages
- One cannot offer for sale what one does not own; nemo dat quod non habet applies
- A purchaser must conduct due diligence to establish the root of title to qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the acts of the 1st and 2nd defendants amount to trespass, with them ordered to vacate Title No. West Pokit/Siyoi 'A'/372 (Kaibos) within 90 days, failing which they shall be evicted in line with the law
- 2.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deliberating over, adjudicating, determining ownership, entering, developing, carrying out any further construction, fencing over, causing damage, or wanton acts of destruction, trespassing thereon, claiming ownership, or in any other manner dealing with Title No. West Pokit/Siyoi 'A'/372 (Kaibos)
- 3.Costs of the suit
- 4.General damages for trespass of Kshs. 5,000,000/=
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land Title No. West Pokot/Siyoi 'A'/372
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koyopel v Lomukerang & another (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1814 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kitale ELC No. E008 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1814/eng@2026-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.