Chesang v Chesang & another (Environment and Land Case 10 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4701 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner's title deed defeated his family's customary trust claim because they had no documentary proof of ownership before registration.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who is the actual, lawful and/or legal owner of the suit land herein
- 2.Whether there exists a customary trust in respect to the suit land
- 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Plaint against the defendants
- 4.Who shall bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Ownership of the suit land
The plaintiff is the absolute, indefeasible and registered owner, the defendants having adduced no evidence to challenge the title under section 26(1)(a) or (b) of the Land Registration Act.
The plaintiff produced a Green Card showing first registration in his name on 01.12.1987. The defendants conceded registration in the plaintiff's name but did not prove fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedurality or corrupt scheme, the only grounds on which a certificate of title may be challenged under section 26 of the Land Registration Act.
Existence of a customary trust
No customary trust exists in favour of the 1st defendant; the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Applying the five Kiebia v M'lintari elements, the defendants offered no documentary proof (Kapsiliat Farm membership register, receipts) that their late father purchased the land. They also originated from Kerio Valley and only came to the land later, so the land was not shown to have been family, clan or group land before registration. Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act place the burden on them, which was not discharged.
Entitlement to permanent injunction
The plaintiff proved entitlement to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on or dealing with the suit land.
Applying Nguruman and the Kenya Power v Sheriff Molana Habib principles, the plaintiff established his ownership, defeating the defendants' claim; the conditions for a permanent injunction were met and the evidence fully supported the claim as pleaded in the plaint.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie and conclusive evidence of proprietorship, challengeable only on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corrupt scheme under section 26 of the Land Registration Act.
- Customary trust under section 28(b) of the Land Registration Act is an overriding interest that need not be noted on the register, but its existence must be proved by the party alleging it.
- Where the first element of customary trust (family, clan or group land before registration) is not proved, the remaining elements of the Kiebia test fall away.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from trespassing upon, claiming and making other dealings with the parcel of land namely title No. MOIBEN/MOIBEN BLOCK 3 (KAPSILIAT)/67 measuring approx. 5.311 hectares
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
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 under the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly cited in the excerpt)
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.
An order of permanent injunction be and is hereby issued, restraining the defendants jointly and severally from trespassing upon, claiming and making other dealings with the parcel of land namely title No. MOIBEN/MOIBEN BLOCK 3 (KAPSILIAT)/67 measuring approx. 5.311 hectares.
Each party to bear their own costs of the suit.
the title deed registered and issued in the name of the plaintiff on 01.12.1987 as seen in the Green Card in respect to the suit land, is a prima facie and conclusive evidence that the plaintiff is the absolute, indefeasible, actual and registered owner of the suit property
customary trust does not exist in respect to the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant as alleged. The defendants have failed to discharge the burden of proof of the existence of a customary trust in respect to the suit land to the required standard.
Issues in the judgment
#Submissions dates precede the delivery date stated internally; submissions dated 2026 with judgment stated as delivered 23 July 2026, and defendants' submissions dated 26.05.2026 are internally consistent but the case number (10 of 2017) versus 2026 dates reflects long pendency, not a contradiction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chesang v Chesang & another (Environment and Land Case 10 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC CASE NO. 10 OF 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4701/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.