Lake Basin Development Authority v Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) & County Government of Bungoma (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed both a landowner's trespass claim and a county's challenge to a land allotment because neither side brought enough evidence to prove its case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Extent of the Plaintiff's entitlement to the suit land
The Plaintiff was allocated only a portion measuring 13.4 hectares of parcel EAST BUKUSU/WEST SANG'ALO/989, not the entire suit land
The plaint described the land as the 13.4Ha plot allotted by the Letter of Allotment dated 23/11/2016. PW1 conceded in cross-examination that Exhibit P5 allocated 40 acres and not the entire suit land, and that the whole parcel measured about 60 acres. The certificate of official search showed the whole parcel, measuring 25.37 Ha, registered in the name of the County Council of Bungoma since 1978.
Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiff's land
Trespass was not proved
The elements of trespass require unauthorized entry or interference with possession. PW1 admitted she had not produced documents showing boundaries and that it was not possible to tell from the documents whether the Defendant had trespassed. No surveyor's report was produced and the photographs did not show unlawful activities by the Defendant on the land claimed.
Whether the Plaintiff's title/allotment should be cancelled
The Interested Party's counterclaim for cancellation of the allotment was dismissed for want of proof
The Interested Party pleaded that the allotment by the National Land Commission was irregular, unlawful and unconstitutional for lack of consultation and concurrence, but called no witness and produced no evidence. Allegations must be proved on a balance of probabilities; unproved allegations cannot ground cancellation of an allotment.
Legal principles established
#- Trespass to land is constituted by an unjustified interference with possession of land and must be proved by evidence
- A party alleging irregular or unconstitutional allotment bears the burden of proving it
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.The counterclaim by the Interested Party is dismissed
- 3.Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant to be borne by the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution implied; not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lake Basin Development Authority v Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) & County Government of Bungoma (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 46 of 2019 (Formerly Bungoma Land Case No. 23 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5893/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.