Onyango v Aloo & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner lost his trespass case because he sued over a subdivided parcel that no longer existed and brought no surveyor's report to prove encroachment.
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 registered owner of land parcel numbers Kisumu/Konya/2567 and 8007 (the suit lands)
- 2.Whether or not the 1st Defendant trespassed onto the suit lands
- 3.Whether or not a cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants
- 4.Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought
- 5.Costs
Key legal issues
#Ownership of the suit lands
Parcel 2567 no longer exists (closed on subdivision in 2018 into parcels 8005-8007) hence did not belong to the plaintiff at filing; parcel 8007 belongs to the plaintiff
The plaintiff produced title deeds and a green card showing registration of parcel 2567 in his name in 1999. However, the 1st Defendant's green card showed the title closed on subdivision on 18th June 2018 with resultant parcels 8005 to 8007, corroborated by surveyor evidence. As to 8007, no fraud was proved against the plaintiff; the land was transmitted to Alila Nyamanga who sold it to the plaintiff.
Trespass by the 1st Defendant
No trespass proved; the claim fails
The plaintiff adduced no surveyor's report to confirm encroachment, conceding in cross-examination that he had none. The only surveyor's report, produced by DW2, found no encroachment onto parcels 8005, 8006 and 8007. The burden of proof under Sections 107 to 109 of the Evidence Act lay on the plaintiff and was not discharged. Trespass cannot be claimed over the non-existent parcel 2567.
Cause of action against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants
No cause of action disclosed or proved against them
Although the 2nd to 4th Defendants entered appearance, no evidence was called on their behalf and the plaintiff's claim of collusion and shared subdivision was not proved against any of them. No cause of action was disclosed or proved.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of trespass cannot sustain in respect of a parcel of land that no longer exists following subdivision
- The burden of proving trespass lies on the party alleging it under Sections 107 to 109 of the Evidence Act, and is discharged by evidence such as a Surveyor's report
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit are awarded to the 1st Defendant
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 parcels Kisumu/Konya/2567 and Kisumu/Konya/8007
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction, declaration of ownership, eviction of 1st Defendant, bar on Defendants, and general damages as sought in the plaint
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership of parcel 2567 (which no longer exists) and failed to prove trespass or encroachment
Costs
Costs of the suit are awarded to the 1st Defendant
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.
It is clear from the evidence placed before court that land parcel No. Kisumu/Konya/2567 no longer exists. It is not therefore correct as pleaded and claimed by the Plaintifi that the land belongs to him and has been encroached onto.
I find that the Plaintifi has not discharged this burden. The findings in the Surveyor's report produced by DW2 were that there was no trespass.
Although the 1st Defendant submitted that the subdivision was done fraudulently without Letters of Administration, the court finds that no evidence of fraud was presented against the plaintifi.
In conclusion, the court finds that the Plaintifi has failed to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. The suit is therefore hereby dismissed. Costs of the suit are awarded to the 1st Defendant. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the title deed for parcel 2567 is described as dated 29th January 2019 in the exhibits list, but as dated 29th January 1999 elsewhere in the judgment
The plaintiff's parcels are described inconsistently; DW3 states parcels 8005, 8006 and 8007 resulted from subdivision of 2567 while the plaint claims only 2567 and 8007 as suit lands
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Aloo & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E036 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Kisumu ELC suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6151/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.