Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment provided

Tamrock Concrete Company Limited v Mambo & 19 others (Environment and Land Case 65 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6815 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 October 2025
3,146 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court ordered squatters off a Mavoko land parcel within 90 days, confirming that a registered title wins against unauthorised occupants.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued the 1st to 17th defendants, whom it described as squatters who had invaded its parcel L.R No. 11895/9 Mavoko in Machakos County measuring 12.15 hectares, and the 18th to 20th defendants (the Ministry of Interior, the Inspector General of Police and a 20th defendant), alleging negligence and dereliction of their constitutional duties to protect the property. The plaintiff sought declarations, a mandatory injunction, eviction, costs of eviction, mesne profits and, in the alternative, compensation from the 20th defendant. The 1st to 17th defendants did not enter appearance despite service; the 18th to 20th defendants denied the claim, asserting that their duty to maintain law and order is owed to the general public. The plaintiff's director (PW1) produced the Grant dated 18th February 1991, rent and rates clearance certificates and payment receipts. The court framed two issues: trespass by the 1st to 17th defendants and negligence by the state defendants. Applying Articles 40(1) of the Constitution and sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act, it found the plaintiff the lawful registered proprietor with indefeasible title, and held the 1st to 17th defendants both trespassers and squatters. However, it declined mesne profits for want of strict proof, no valuation or evidence of profits having been tendered. It also dismissed the claim against the 18th to 20th defendants, finding no evidence of negligence or dereliction of duty. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the 1st to 17th defendants: a declaration of illegal occupation, an order to vacate within 90 days failing which eviction would issue at their cost, and costs of the suit.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the 1st to 17th defendants have trespassed on the suit property
  2. 2.Whether the 18th, 19th and 20th defendants were negligent in executing their Constitutional duties

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st to 17th defendants were trespassers and squatters on the suit property

Holding

They were both trespassers and squatters; the plaintiff proved its registered proprietorship and the defendants offered no lawful justification for entry

Reasoning

The plaintiff produced a Grant dated 18th February 1991 showing registered leasehold interest from 1st August 1990 for 45 years, and demonstrated payment of land rent and rates. Under sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act its title is prima facie and indefeasible. None of the defendants contested the registration or appeared, and they did not demonstrate any lawful justification for entering or occupying the land.

p. 5
02

Whether mesne profits were payable

Holding

The claim for mesne profits failed for want of proof; no valuation or evidence of profits was tendered

Reasoning

Relying on Rajan Shah and Attorney General v Halal Meat Products, the court held mesne profits are damages for trespass which must be pleaded and strictly proved. The plaintiff's pleadings and evidence did not specify what the defendants received or would have received as profits, and no valuation was tendered, so the claim was declined.

p. 6
03

Whether the 18th, 19th and 20th defendants breached their constitutional duties

Holding

No negligence or dereliction of duty was proved; the state agencies owe law-and-order duties to the public, not a duty to guard private parcels

Reasoning

The plaintiff did not specify the constitutional provisions imposing specific duties on the defendants in regard to the suit property. The court reasoned it cannot be the duty of the Ministry of Interior or the Inspector General of Police to guard all parcels of land in Kenya to stop trespass, and no evidence showed how the 20th defendant failed in its duty.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Registration vests in a proprietor absolute and indefeasible rights unless title was acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corruption
  • Mesne profits are damages which must not only be pleaded but also strictly proved

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the persons occupying the plaintiff's parcel L.R No. 11895/9 Mavoko, specifically the 1st to 17th defendants and any person claiming through them, their servants, employees or agents, are squatters and their occupation and structures are illegal and unlawful
  2. 2.An order that the 1st to 17th defendants and persons claiming through them vacate the suit property within 90 days of the judgment, and in default eviction orders to issue, with the costs of eviction borne by the 1st to 17th defendants
  3. 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, to be borne by the 1st to 17th defendants
  4. 4.The claim against the 18th, 19th and 20th defendants dismissed with no order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property in Machakos County; claim founded on Articles 40(1) of the Constitution and the Land Registration Act and Trespass Act

Relief refused

#

Mesne profits from the time of the illegal and unlawful occupation of the suit property

Not pleaded or proved with any valuation or evidence of the profits received or lost

p. 6

Declaration that the 18th, 19th and 20th defendants breached their constitutional duty and order for compensation by the 20th defendant at market value

No evidence of negligence or dereliction of duty; plaintiff did not specify the constitutional provisions placing specific duties on the defendants

p. 6

Costs

Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff and borne by the 1st to 17th defendants; claim against the 18th, 19th and 20th defendants dismissed with no order as to costs

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.

A declaration be and is hereby made that the persons who are occupying the plaintifi’s parcel of land L.R No. 11895/9 Mavoko in Machakos County and more specifically the 1st to 17th defendants and any other person claiming through them, their servants, employees or agents are squatters and their occupation and their structures whether temporary or permanent on the suit property are illegal and unlawful
p. 6Declaration of illegality of occupation
The 1st to 17th defendants and any other persons claiming through them, their servants, agents, employees, third parties and squatters are ordered to vacate all that parcel of land situate North West of Machakos County containing by measurement One Two decimal one five (12.15) Hectares or thereabout that is to say Land reference Number 11895/9 Mavoko in Machakos County, within 90 days of this judgment and in default, eviction orders to issue
p. 6Vacation and eviction order
unless there is proof that the acquisition of title by a registered proprietor was by fraud, misrepresentation, illegality or corruption, registration vests in a proprietor of land, absolute and indefeasible rights
p. 3Indefeasibility of registered title
As mesne profits are damages, they must not only be pleaded, but the same must also be strictly proved
p. 6Proof of mesne profits

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tamrock Concrete Company Limited v Mambo & 19 others (Environment and Land Case 65 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6815 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6815/eng@2025-10-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.