Shalle (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Shalle Hirbo Alias Shalle Hirbo) v Marsabit Township Women Group & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3792 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner claiming Kshs. 70 million lost everything because the land was never demarcated and the claims were never properly pleaded.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of land and, if so, the quantum of the recompense
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits and, if so, the quantum payable
- 3.Whether the Plaintiff has established a basis for the grant of an order of exemplary damages or otherwise
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation of Kshs. 45,000,000/- for loss of user/deprivation of land
Dismissed. The suit land had not been demarcated, so deprivation could not be ascertained; the valuation report concerned LR No. Marsabit/Mountain/2497, an alien title; and the claim was neither pleaded nor particularized in the Plaint.
The court found it common ground that the Minister's decision of 17.04.2003 remained unimplemented and that neither party knew the demarcations separating their portions. Without demarcation, trespass or deprivation cannot be established. The valuation report related to a different parcel, offending the doctrine of departure under Order 2 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the claim was first raised in submissions.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits of Kshs. 20,000,000/-
Dismissed. The claim was akin to special damages and was neither pleaded nor particularized; moreover, the portions had not been demarcated so deprivation could not be computed.
Relying on Karanja Mbugua, Halal Meat Products and other authorities, the court held that mesne profits must be pleaded with particulars before proof. The Plaintiff pleaded no particulars, and since the ascertainment of the respective portions was yet to be undertaken, the claim was mounted in a vacuum.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general and exemplary damages
Dismissed. The 1st Defendant bears no responsibility for implementing the Minister's decision; the designated officers were not impleaded; the claim was time-barred under the Public Authorities Limitations Act; and the Plaintiff's inactivity attracted laches and acquiescence.
The court held that implementation of adjudication decisions rests with the Director of Land Adjudication and the Chief Land Registrar, who were never joined. The 1st Defendant is a private women's group. The cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants accrued in 2003, far outside the one-year limit for tort claims against government, and the Plaintiff took no proactive steps until 2021.
Legal capacity of the 1st Defendant to be sued (raised sua sponte, not canvassed)
Noted but not acted upon: the 1st Defendant is a women's group without legal capacity to be sued in its own name, making the suit against it incompetent, but the court declined to make precipitate findings since the issue was not canvassed.
The court flagged that the 1st Defendant is a welfare group registered with the relevant ministry, lacking capacity to be sued. Being a jurisdictional question that should have been raised at the onset, the judge declined to non-suit the Plaintiff on a basis neither party argued.
Legal principles established
#- Ascertainment of boundaries and demarcation is a precondition to a claim of trespass, encroachment or deprivation of land
- A valuation report concerning a parcel of land not the subject of the pleadings cannot ground an award of compensation (doctrine of departure)
- A claim for mesne profits is akin to special damages and must be pleaded and particularized before it can be proved
- Exemplary damages are punitive and exceptional, awarded only in the categories set out in Rookes v Barnard
- Decisions of the Minister on land adjudication appeals under the Land Adjudication Act are implemented by the Director of Land Adjudication and the Chief Land Registrar
- A civil suit can only be mounted against legal entities with capacity to sue or be sued
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for compensation for loss of user/deprivation of land be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.The prayer for mesne profits be and is hereby dismissed
- 3.The prayer for exemplary damages be and is hereby dismissed
- 4.Each party shall bear own costs of the suit
- 5.Costs of the counter claim had already been dealt with vide the consent order issued on 02.10.2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (suit filed by way of Plaint; Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284 provisions discussed)
Relief refused
#Compensation of Kshs. 45,000,000/- for loss of user/deprivation of land
The land had not been demarcated; the valuation report related to a different parcel (LR No. Marsabit/Mountain/2497); and the claim was neither pleaded nor particularized
Mesne profits of Kshs. 20,000,000/-
A claim for mesne profits is akin to special damages and must be pleaded and particularized; the Plaintiff did neither
General and exemplary damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/-
The claim was premature, misconceived and stillborn against the 1st Defendant (a private welfare group not chargeable with implementation); unimplead designated officers; time-barred under the Public Authorities Limitations Act; and defeated by laches/acquiescence
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs of the suit; costs of the counter claim were already dealt with vide the consent order issued on 02.10.2025.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
i. The prayer for compensation for loss of user/deprivation of land be and is hereby dismissed. ii. The prayer for Mense profits be and is hereby dismissed. iii. The prayer for exemplary damages be and is hereby dismissed. iv. Each party shall bear own costs of the suit.
the ascertainment of the boundaries and the demarcations of the ground positions of the portions belonging to the respective parties, is a precursor to ascertaining trespass; encroachment; or deprivation
the valuation report that relates to a parcel of land, which is not the subject of the pleadings, cannot be deployed for purposes of assessing and awarding compensation
any claimant seeking to partake of and benefit from Mense profits, is obligated to plead and particularize same
Simply put, the claim for exemplary damages as against the 1st Defendant is premature; misconceived; and stillborn
It is trite that a suit/civil proceeding[s] can only be mounted against legal entities and not otherwise
Issues in the judgment
#The paragraph numbering in the judgment is inconsistent: after paragraph 70, the concluding paragraphs are numbered '53.' twice ('53. Regarding costs...' and '53. Final orders:') before reverting to paragraphs 67-70.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are described inconsistently in the judgment, with the 3rd Defendant identified as the 'land registrar- Isiolo' although the parties listing also attributes that role generally to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
The consent order dated 19/11/2023 is described as implementing the Land Adjudication Officer's decision in Objection Numbers 148/92 and 171/92 'dated 19/11/2023', although objection proceedings of 1992 would predate that date; the date appears erroneous within the judgment itself.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shalle (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Shalle Hirbo Alias Shalle Hirbo) v Marsabit Township Women Group & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3792 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment copy provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3792/eng@2026-06-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.