Maiyo & another v County Government of Trans Nzoia (Land Case E003 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4016 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the plaintiffs have proved that the defendant trespassed into the suit parcels of land and committed acts of destruction without justification
- 2.If the defendant has proved that the suit land is public land that was incapable of alienation to the plaintiffs
- 3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought
- 4.What is the order as to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant proved the suit parcels are public land reserved for Kitale Stadium
No - the defendant called no witnesses, and the plaintiffs' paper trail and valuation evidence showed the parcels do not form part of the Stadium land
The defendant filed a statement of defence, counterclaim, witness statement and list of documents but closed its case without calling any witness. Its pleadings and submissions therefore had no probative value. The plaintiffs produced an allotment letter, receipts, certificate of lease, PDP, rates and rent payments, and PW1's survey-corroborated valuation showing the plots are separate from Kitale Stadium land. In the absence of rival evidence the court found the plaintiffs' title documents valid and conclusive.
Whether the 17/4/2023 demolition was justified
No - the demolition was illegal, high-handed and malicious as no court order was obtained and no statutory eviction procedure under Sections 152A-I of the Land Act, the County Governments Act or PLUPA was followed
The court held that eviction or demolition of persons in possession requires strict compliance with statutory procedure, including the mandatory 90-day notice regime, and where ownership is in dispute the dispute must be resolved before eviction. There was no court order declaring the plaintiffs trespassers, no revocation of their titles, no notice to vacate, and no superior title held by the defendant. The defendant instead took 'the route of the law of the jungle'.
Whether the plaintiffs' titles were procedurally and regularly obtained
Yes - the plaintiffs produced a paper trail showing the history of acquisition, use and possession, corroborated by PW1's survey evidence
Relying on Munyu Maina and Dina Management, the court noted the plaintiffs still had to prove their titles were procedurally obtained notwithstanding the defendant's failure to call evidence. The plaintiffs availed an allotment letter dated 31/5/1996, payment receipts, the lease registered 26/2/2020, certificate of lease, rent clearance certificate, rates payments and a PDP. PW1, a valuer, corroborated the history from survey maps. The court found the title documents valid, legal and conclusive evidence of ownership.
Entitlement to damages
Special damages of Kshs. 3,900,000/= and general damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/= awarded, special damages being grantable in the absence of a rival expert report
The court found the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs sought including special damages because there was no rival expert valuation from the defendant. PW1, a Land Valuer, had valued the developments using comparative and contractor's methodology after visiting the plots on 18/5/2023. The demolition was found illegal, high-handed and extremely malicious, warranting general damages for trespass.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party fails to call evidence in support of its proposition, its pleadings remain mere statements of fact with no probative value
- When the root of title is under challenge, a party must go beyond the instrument of title and prove the legality of how the title was acquired
- Any person claiming that public land is occupied by illegal trespassers must follow the law set out in Sections 152A-I of the Land Act before eviction or demolition
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the sole owner of Land Parcel No. Kitale Municipality Block 3/857
- 2.A declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land comprised in the unsurveyed light industrial Plot No. 4, Kitale Municipality
- 3.A declaration that the two parcels do not form part of the Kitale Stadium land in Kitale
- 4.A declaration that the demolition of the plaintiffs' developments on 17/4/2023 was illegal, high-handed, and extremely malicious
- 5.Special damages of Kshs. 3,900,000/=
- 6.General damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/=
- 7.The defence and counterclaim dismissed
- 8.Costs to the plaintiffs
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 claims, trespass and title disputes (Environment and Land Court Act)
Relief refused
#Temporary and permanent injunction
Not included among the reliefs granted in the final orders
Exemplary damages
General damages of Kshs. 5,000,000/= were awarded instead; exemplary damages not granted
Costs
Costs to the plaintiffs.
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 declaration be, and is hereby issued that the demolition of the plaintiffs’ developments standing on Land Parcel No. Kitale Municipality Block 3/857 and the unsurveyed light industrial Plot No. 4, Kitale Municipality, by the defendant on 17/4/2023, was illegal, high-handed, and extremely malicious.
In this suit, the defendant took the route of the law of the jungle. It did not even follow its own County Government Act and the Physical Land Use Planning Act, and the Rules made thereunder
Where a party fails to call evidence in support of its proposition, the party’s pleadings cannot be taken as evidence but remain mere statements of fact with no probative value and remain unsubstantiated
Therefore, the court, in the absence of rival evidence, finds the title documents held by the plaintiffs valid, legal, and conclusive evidence of ownership.
e. Special damages of Kshs. 3,900,000/=. f. General damages of Kshs.5,000,000/=. g. The defence and counterclaim are dismissed. h. Costs to the plaintiffs.
Issues in the judgment
#The memorandum of the 1st plaintiff's certificate of lease describes the parcel as measuring 0.0692 Ha, while the defendant's counterclaim refers to the same title as measuring 0.1267 of a Hectare; the judgment does not reconcile the discrepancy
The judgment records the defendant's defence and counterclaim as dated 18/7/2024 in one passage and 11/11/2024 in others
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maiyo & another v County Government of Trans Nzoia (Land Case E003 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4016 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kitale ELC LC No. E003 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4016/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.