Azam Motoring Logistics Ltd v Lolmodooni & 2 others (Land Case E006 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1238 (KLR) (25 February 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 1238 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NANYUKI LAND CASE E006 OF 2024 LN MBUGUA, J FEBRUARY 25, 2026 BETWEEN AZAM MOTORING LOGISTICS LTD .................................................... PLAINTIFF AND JACKSON LOLMODOONI ............................................................. 1ST DEFENDANT DAVID LOLMODOONI .................................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT SAAYO LENAYESA .......................................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. Vide a plaint dated 11.3.2024 and amended on 4.4.2024, the plaintifi contends that it is the registered owner of the suit property LR/Sipili Donyoloip Block 1/1960 ( Laikipia), having bought the said land from one Edmund Muturi of which it acquired a title thereof on 18.10.2023. That from 14.1.2024, the defendants trespassed on the suit land, cut down trees and commenced ploughing upon the said land. However, despite the fact that a report was made at Ol Moran police station, the defendants continue with the said trespass. 2. The plaintifi therefore prays for judgment against the defendants in the following terms; “ a) A permanent injunction be and is hereby granted, restraining the 1st and 2nd and 3rd defendants their agents, employees or servants or anybody else acting on their behalf from trespassing, harassing or in any manner interfering with the quiet possession, ownership, occupation and use of LR No. Sipili Donyoloip Block 1/1960 (Laikipia), by the plaintifi, their agents, employees or servants or anybody else acting on their behalf. b) Cost of this suit be awarded to the plaintifi”. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1238/eng@2026-02-25 1
page 1 of 3
3. The defendants did not file any pleadings in this matter, hence the same proceeded as a formal proof. 4. PW1, Christopher Kimathi introduced himself as the legal manager of the plaintifi. He adopted his witness statement dated 1.2. 2025 as his evidence. He also produced the documents in his list dated 4.4.2024 as P-Exh 1-10. His evidence is that the suit land was registered in the name of Xplico Insurance Co. on 18.12.2014, then to Edmund Muturi on 26.4.2018. That the plaintifi bought the suit land from Edmund via a sale that took place in November 2022, then the suit land was registered in favour of the plaintifi on 18.10.2023.However, the defendants have since trespassed on the suit land causing the plaintifi to breach an investment contract relating to free range goat breeding with investors from Doha-Qatar. 5. I have considered the pleadings, the evidence as well as the submissions of the plaintifi. It is noted that in the amended plaint, the claims for special, general as well as punitive damages was abandoned, thus the issue for determination is whether, the order for permanent injunction sought by the plaintifi should be issued. 6. The provisions of Section 107 of the Evidence Act stipulate that: 7. “ (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person” In Samson S. Maitai & another V. African Safari Club Limited & Another [2010] eKLR, the court had this to say in relation to proof. “ Proof refers to evidence which satisfies the court as to the truth or falsity of a fact. Generally, as we well know, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the truth of the issue in dispute.” Also see Kipkebe Limited v Peterson Ondieki Tai [2016] eKLR Jennifer Nyambura Kamau v Humphrey Mbaka Nandi [2013] eKLR. 8. Thus even if the matter proceeded as a formal proof, the plaintifi has a legal duty to proof its case. A perusal of the documents of titles availed by the plaintifi indicates that indeed the land belonged to Explico Insurance, then it came to Edmund, then to the plaintifi. Thus the plaintifi is the lawfully registered owner of the suit land, and it is entitled to enjoy the suit land free from all other interests unless provided for by statutes in terms of section 25 of the Land Registration Act. 9. Some of the photographs availed by the plaintifi reveal that indeed the land is being ploughed. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with plaintifi’s submissions that it has established a legal right, which right has been infringed. I therefore find that the plaintifi has proved its case on a balance of probabilities, and plaintifi’s claim is allowed in terms of the amended plaint with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1238/eng@2026-02-25 2
page 2 of 3
Karongo for plaintifi Nancy Mwangi – Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1238/eng@2026-02-25 3
page 3 of 3