Kiburu v Gathungu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E268 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7105 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court cancelled a fraudulently acquired land title, returned the plot to the original allottee, and awarded Kshs. 1 million in trespass damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who is the owner of the suit land?
- 2.Whether the title held by the 3rd Defendant should be cancelled.
- 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for damages for trespass/mesne profits.
Key legal issues
#Ownership of the suit land and validity of the 3rd Defendant's title
The Plaintiff proved the root of his title as allottee of Plot No. 195 (LR Nairobi Block 116/404); the title held by the 3rd Defendant was fraudulently acquired and is cancelled
The 4th Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff's membership and allotment; receipts showed the Plaintiff paid for the land. The 1st and 2nd Defendants, who were not members, acquired title in 2006 and quickly charged it; transfer to the 3rd Defendant occurred despite a pending demand letter. The 1st to 3rd Defendants never defended the suit or proved the root of their title, so the title was fettered and the 3rd Defendant could not be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
Damages for trespass/mesne profits
Trespass by the 3rd Defendant established; general damages of Kshs. 1,000,000/= awarded; mesne profits refused for lack of proof
Continuous erection of a permanent multi-storeyed structure amounted to continuous trespass, actionable per se. However mesne profits are special damages requiring pleading and proof, and no evidence of occupation profits was tendered.
Legal principles established
#- Allegations of fraud must be strictly pleaded and proved to a higher standard than balance of probabilities
- A registered proprietor whose root of title is challenged must go beyond the title instrument and prove legality of acquisition
Court orders
#- 1.Certificate of lease for Nairobi/Block 116/404 issued to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and transferred to the 3rd Defendant be cancelled, annulled or revoked and transferred to the Plaintiff absolutely
- 2.Permanent injunction issued against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from trespassing, building, alienating, selling, transferring or dealing with Nairobi/Block 116/404
- 3.Order of demolition of all structures erected on Nairobi/Block 116/404 by the 3rd Defendant, after ninety (90) days, at his own costs, under supervision of the area OCS or the in-charge provincial administrator
- 4.Damages for trespass of Kshs. 1,000,000/= to be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants
- 5.Costs of the suit to be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants
- 6.Interest on damages and costs at court rates until payment in full
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 title and trespass disputes
Relief refused
#Mesne profits
The Plaintiff did not tender any evidence to prove mesne profits
Costs
Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit to be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants only; the 4th Defendant exonerated; interest on damages and costs at court rates until payment in full.
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.
I will however exonerate the 4th Defendant and proceed to enter judgement in favour of the Plaintifi in the following terms
An order is hereby issued directed at the Chief Land Registrar (5th Defendant) that the certificate of lease for land parcel Nairobi/Block 116/404 issued to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and in turn transferred to 3rd Defendant should be cancelled, annulled or revoked and the same be transferred to the Plaintifi absolutely.
A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants through themselves, agents, servants, employees or anyone else claiming through them from trespassing, building, alienating, selling, transferring or in any other manner dealing with Nairobi/Block 116/404.
An order of demolition be and is hereby issued of all that structures erected on Nairobi/Block 116/404 by the 3rd Defendant, after ninety (90) days from the date hereof, at his own costs under the supervision of the area OCS or the in-charge provincial administrator.
The Plaintifi is hereby awarded damages for trespass amounting to Kshs. 1,000,000/= to be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of how he acquired the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal and free from any encumbrances
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff's counsel's client identity appears contradictory: cross-examination suggests Maosa & Company Advocates acted for the 4th Defendant, yet the coram lists 'Maosa for 4th Defendant', which is consistent, but the judgment elsewhere suggests the same advocates also assisted the Plaintiff personally
Judgment states the case was proved against the 5th Defendant yet the 5th Defendant (Chief Land Registrar) was directed to cancel and transfer the title as relief, which is not a liability finding against it
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiburu v Gathungu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E268 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7105/eng@2025-10-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.