Njoroge v Wang’ondu (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5113 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A registered Kenyan landowner won eviction of a squatter within 90 days, but lost her compensation claim because she provided no proof of losses.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an order of eviction should issue against the Defendant.
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits.
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether an order of eviction should issue against the Defendant
Yes. The Plaintiff proved she is the registered proprietor; the Defendant did not rebut the claim and has no legal right to remain on the suit land.
The Plaintiff produced a certificate of title showing she is the registered proprietor of the suit land. Under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, registration vests absolute ownership and the title is prima facie and indefeasible. The Defendant, though served and having filed a defence, did not attend hearing or challenge the title. The registered owner is entitled to possession, occupation and use, and the Defendant's unauthorized occupation violated those rights.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits
No. The Plaintiff failed to prove the quantum or basis of mesne profits.
Although mesne profits were pleaded, the Plaintiff led no evidence of the period the Defendant occupied the land, the extent of the encroachment or the loss suffered. Relying on the Peter Mwangi Mbuthia decision, the court held that a claimant must place material before the court demonstrating how the amount claimed was computed, failing which the claim cannot be granted.
Who should bear the costs of the suit
The Plaintiff, having been inconvenienced by the Defendant's defiance, is entitled to costs.
The court applied the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The Defendant's refusal to vacate the suit land inconvenienced the Plaintiff, who substantially succeeded on the eviction claim, so costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence that the named proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corrupt scheme.
- A claimant for mesne profits must place material before the Court demonstrating how the claimed amount was arrived at.
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant by herself, family members, employees, agents and whomsoever claiming under her be and is hereby directed to give vacant possession of LR. No. Thika Municipality Block 38/258 within 90 days from the date hereof, failure of which an eviction order will issue.
- 2.The Costs of the suit is awarded to the Plaintiff.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over orders relating to the use, occupation and title to land
Relief refused
#Mesne profits
The Plaintiff did not furnish evidence on the period of occupation, extent of encroachment or loss suffered, and failed to discharge her burden of proof.
Costs
The Costs of the suit is awarded to the Plaintiff.
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.
The Defendant by herself, family members, employees, agents and whomsoever claiming under her be and is hereby directed to give vacant possession of LR. No. Thika Municipality Block 38/258 within 90 days from the date hereof, failure of which an eviction order will issue.
The Costs of the suit is awarded to the Plaintiff.
the Plaintiff had failed to discharge her burden of proof to prove that she is indeed entitled to a claim of mesne profits and I will decline to award her the same.
shall be taken by all Courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the compensation meeting - paragraph 4 says 7/06/2024 while paragraph 10 says 7/06/2014.
The judgment is internally inconsistent as to when the Plaintiff learnt of the encroachment versus issuance of title, stating title was issued on 28/03/2018 and encroachment discovered in 2018, while the plaint is described as filed in 2022 with documents dated 23/12/2021.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v Wang’ondu (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC NO. E005 OF 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5113/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.