Karanja v Wanjama (Environment and Land Case E193 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6359 (KLR)

A copy of the Certificate of Title IR 223089 registered on 7th September 2020;A copy of the oficial search dated 7th September 2020Extract of the lease dated 11th September 2020 4. The Plaintifi's evidence was corroborated by Mr. George Gitonga Land Registrar from the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, who confirmed that the title document produced by the Plaintifi was authentic and refiect the oficial records of the Ministry. 5. The sole issue for determination is whether the Plaintifi is entitled to the orders sought. 6. In spite of the fact that the evidence was uncontroverted the court still has to be satisfied that the Plaintifi has proved that the court should grant the orders sought. See Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited…Vs…Nathan Karanja Gachoka & Another [2016] eKLR, in which the Court stated “I am of the opinion that uncontroverted evidence must bring out the fault and negligence of a defendant, and that a court should not take it truthful without interrogation for the reason only that it is uncontroverted. A plaintifi must prove its case too upon a balance of probability whether the evidence is unchallenged or not.’ The same sentiments were echoed in the case of Gichinga Kibutha… Vs…Carooline Nduku (2018) eKLR “It is not automatic that instances where the evidence is not controverted the Claimants shall have his way in Court. He must discharge the burden of proof. He must proof his case however much the opponent has not made a presence in the contest.’’ . 7. From the uncontroverted evidence before the court, it is clear that the Plaintifi is the registered proprietor of Land Reference 32625 within the meaning of Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which provides that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership unless obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, which has not been alleged or proved in this case. 8. Further, the Plaintifi's testimony and the oficial records establish that the Defendant has unlawfully trespassed on the Plaintifi’s property, thereby infringing upon his proprietary rights protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. 9. Having considered the pleadings, the uncontested evidence, and the applicable law, I find that the Plaintifi has proved his case and is entitled to the orders sought. The Plaintifi had made a claim for general damages for tresspass. Section 3 (1) of the Trespass Act, Cap 294 provides that: “ Any person who without reasonable excuse enters, is or remains upon or erects any structure on, or cultivates or tills or grazes stock or permits stock to be on, private land without the consent of the occupier thereof shall be guilty of an ofience.” 10. The Defendants made an attempt to enter upon the Plaintifis land. Their attempts to do so were however thwarted by the quick intervention of police oficers. I will award the Plaintifi nominal damages of Ksh 50,000. 11. Consequently, Judgement is entered for the Plaintifi in the following terms; a. An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant herein whether by themselves or through their agents, employees, servants or anybody claiming through them or under their name either individually or collectively from trespassing or in manner dealing with all that parcel of land known as Land Reference Number 32625 situate in Nairobi County b. A declaration that the Plaintifi is the registered owner and legal proprietor of all that parcel of land known as Land Reference Number 32625 situate in Nairobi County c. Nominal Damages of Ksh 50,000 d. Costs of the suit. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6359/eng@2025-05-22 2

page 2 of 3

JUDGEMENT SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 JUDY OMANGE JUDGE In the presence of Court Assistant Catherine https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6359/eng@2025-05-22 3

page 3 of 3