Daimler Enterprises Ltd v Bakhresa Food Products (K) Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 495 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 3992 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court cancelled a landowner's title because the company claimed land allocated before it even existed, handing ownership to Bakhresa Grain Milling.
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 has proved that it is the lawful proprietor of L.R. No. 15100 and consequently entitled to the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought in the Plaint
- 2.Whether the 2nd Defendant has established its Counterclaim by proving that it holds a valid and indefeasible title to the suit property, thereby entitling it to the reliefs sought therein
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit and the Counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff proved a lawful root of title to L.R. No. 15100
No - the Plaintiff was incorporated in 2009 yet claimed a 1999 allotment, and the land had already been alienated in 1995, so its title was unprocedurally acquired
Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act qualifies the protection of title. The Plaintiff claimed an allotment made in 1999 but was only incorporated on 2nd February 2009, and no evidence of lawful assignment of the allotment was produced. Further, a grant had issued on 6th October 1995, so the land was unavailable for allocation in 1999 and there was no proof the earlier grant had been extinguished. The Director of Surveys' report, though raising survey questions, could not substitute for proof of lawful allotment.
Whether the 2nd Defendant proved its Counterclaim
Yes - the 2nd Defendant demonstrated an unbroken chain of title from the 1995 grant through its 2003 acquisition and long possession, and the Plaintiff's title was declared null and void and ordered cancelled
The 2nd Defendant traced ownership from Wandegeya Company Limited through Clovesleaf Limited and Don Holdings Limited, took possession in 2003, erected a boundary wall and site house, and discharged statutory obligations. Although the Plaintiff filed no Defence to the Counterclaim, the Court independently evaluated the evidence and found the chain of title lawful and undisplaced. The NLC determination of 14th November 2016, while not binding, lent evidential support to the Defendants' case.
Whether general damages for trespass should be awarded on the Counterclaim
Declined - the declaratory and consequential reliefs were sufficient to vindicate the 2nd Defendant's proprietary rights
Trespass to land is actionable per se but the award of damages is discretionary and depends on the circumstances. The principal issue in the case was the determination of the lawful proprietor. Having granted declarations, cancellation of the Plaintiff's title and a permanent injunction, the Court considered a separate award of general damages unnecessary.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is not conclusive proof of ownership where its root is under challenge; the registered proprietor must prove the legality of the acquisition
- A company cannot claim to have acquired or owned property before its incorporation
- Once public land has been alienated it ceases to be available for subsequent allocation
- A Counterclaim is in the nature of a cross-suit and must be proved on a balance of probabilities even if undefended
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.Judgment is entered for the 2nd Defendant on the Counterclaim
- 3.A declaration that the 2nd Defendant, Bakhresa Grain Milling (K) Limited, is the lawful and indefeasible proprietor of L.R. No. 29455, formerly L.R. No. 21185
- 4.A declaration that Grant No. I.R. 151750 in respect of L.R. No. 15100 is null and void
- 5.An order directing the Chief Land Registrar to cancel Grant No. I.R. 151750 relating to L.R. No. 15100 and rectify the register accordingly
- 6.A permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff, its servants, agents or any person claiming through it from entering upon, trespassing, occupying, developing, alienating, remaining on, or in any manner whatsoever interfering with the 2nd Defendant's quiet possession, occupation and enjoyment of L.R. No. 29455
- 7.The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit and the Counterclaim
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 title to and possession of land (Land Registration Act; Article 40 of the Constitution invoked by the parties)
Relief refused
#General damages for trespass sought by the 2nd Defendant on the Counterclaim
The declaratory and consequential reliefs were held sufficient to vindicate the 2nd Defendant's proprietary rights; damages are discretionary
All reliefs sought by the Plaintiff (declarations, permanent injunctions, police assistance)
The Plaintiff failed to prove a lawful root of title to L.R. No. 15100
Costs
The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit and the Counterclaim
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.
A company cannot own property, receive an allotment, or acquire legal rights before it comes into existence.
once land has been alienated, the Commissioner of Lands has no power to alienate it again.
when a registered proprietors' root of title is under challenge, it is not suficient to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership.
The Plaintifi's suit is hereby dismissed.
A declaration is hereby issued that Grant No. I.R. 151750 in respect of L.R. No. 15100 is null and void.
The Plaintifi shall bear the costs of the suit and the Counterclaim.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 29th June 2026, a date in the future relative to typical filing records; recorded as printed
The name of the Plaintiff is never stated anywhere in the judgment as supplied
The case number and neutral citation are not stated in the judgment as supplied
The reliefs in the Plaint are addressed to 'the Defendant' yet a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim was filed by 'the Defendants' (1st and 2nd Defendants), and only the 2nd Defendant (Bakhresa Grain Milling (K) Limited) is named in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daimler Enterprises Ltd v Bakhresa Food Products (K) Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 495 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 3992 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3992/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.