Hussein v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 358 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3766 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner suing Kenya Pipeline for trespass lost because she couldn't prove the pipeline sat outside a pre-existing easement corridor.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit land
- 2.Whether or not the suit land is public land
- 3.Whether or not the Defendant trespassed onto the suit land
- 4.Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in the amended plaint dated 10th November, 2022
- 5.Costs
Key legal issues
#Validity of the Plaintiff's title
The court proceeds on the premise that the Plaintiff's title remains intact, per the pronouncement in Petition No. 25 of 2017
The NLC revoked the title by Gazette Notice dated 18 July 2014, but in Kisumu ELC Petition No. 25 of 2017 the court found there was no revocation decision capable of being quashed and dismissed the petition. Neither the dismissal nor any appeal quashed the Gazette Notice; equally, it did not declare the title revoked. For this suit the court adopts the petition's pronouncement that no revocation decision existed, so the Plaintiff's title stands.
Whether the suit land is public land
No; the land remains private property registered in the Plaintiff's name
Because the court found the Plaintiff's title intact following the pronouncement in Petition No. 25 of 2017, it followed that the suit land is not public land but remains private property registered in the Plaintiff's name.
Whether the Defendant trespassed
Trespass not proved
It was common ground a pipeline existed on a 30-metre corridor before Plantex Limited and the Plaintiff acquired the land. The Plaintiff adduced no surveyor's report showing the 2015 pipeline lay outside that corridor, and the valuation report dealt only with the value of the entire land. The burden of proving trespass lay on the Plaintiff and was not discharged.
Entitlement to the relief sought
None of the reliefs is available; the entire claim, premised on trespass, fails
Having failed to prove trespass, the Plaintiff cannot obtain a permanent injunction or an order for removal of pipes and restoration. Compensation as an alternative requires proof of compulsory acquisition, which was neither alleged nor proved. No evidence showed damage to or diminution of value of the land, and Article 40 was not breached. The claim on a balance of probabilities therefore fails.
Legal principles established
#- A title revoked by the National Land Commission ceases to be valid unless the revocation is quashed
- A petition dismissed for failure to prove a revocation decision did not quash the Gazette Notice; the effect was to leave the situation as it was
- The party alleging trespass bears the burden of proving the encroachment lay outside the existing easement corridor
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims (suit for trespass, injunction and compensation)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the suit property
Plaintiff did not prove trespass; conditions for a permanent injunction not met
Order directing removal of pipes and restoration of the land
Falls with the injunction; no trespass proved
Alternative compensation of Kshs.109,250,000 plus 15% disturbance allowance
No allegation or proof of compulsory acquisition; no evidence the pipeline covered the entire land
General damages for breach of Article 40 of the Constitution
No breach of Article 40 proved
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit
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.
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the Plaintifi has failed to prove her case on a balance of probabilities. The suit is therefore hereby dismissed. Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
I find that the Plaintifi has not proved that the Defendant trespassed onto the suit land.
the court proceeds on the premise of the court's pronouncement in Petition No. 25 of 2017that there was no revocation decision and hence the title held by the Plaintifi remains intact.
Having been revoked by the National Land Commission, the title document held by the Plaintifi then ceased to be valid.
The efiect of the judgement was to leave the situation as it was; it did not quash the decision of the National land Commission as contained in the gazette notice.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment nowhere states the case number of the suit itself; only the related petition (Kisumu ELC Petition No. 25 of 2017) is numbered
The names of the parties are not stated in the judgment; only the roles 'Plaintifi' and 'Defendant' appear
Internal inconsistency on the effect of Petition No. 25 of 2017: the court finds title 'ceased to be valid' upon NLC revocation yet proceeds on the premise that the title 'remains intact' per that petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hussein v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (Environment & Land Case 358 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3766 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Kisumu ELC suit; relates to L.R. No. Kisumu Municipality/Block II/121). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3766/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.