Waruinge v China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Limited (Environment and Land Case E124 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2638 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered China Road and Bridge Corporation to pay Kshs 1.2 million for using private land without permission, proving even big contractors cannot bypass landowners.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has established absolute ownership and lawful possession of the suit property.
- 2.Whether the Defendant's activities constituted trespass to land and nuisance.
- 3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought, including permanent injunction and damages.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established ownership and possession of the suit property
The Plaintiff, anchored on a Certificate of Title and Mutation Form dated 9/02/2010, sufficiently demonstrated both de jure ownership and de facto possession.
The Plaintiff's title was anchored in a Certificate of Title and Mutation Form, which under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership. The Defendant did not challenge the title but only the location of the alleged trespass. Relying on Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa, the court noted title must be legally acquired, but here the Defendant did not dispute it, so ownership and possession were established.
Whether the Defendant's activities constituted trespass and nuisance
The Defendant's entry, installation of the water pump and construction of the gravel pathway on the suit property constituted trespass and physical nuisance.
The Defendant claimed the works were on riparian land and public access roads, but DW1 admitted the WRA permit was obtained after the demand letter and did not specify the parcel or coordinates. No map or survey evidence supported the riparian defence, and no easement under Section 39(1) of the Water Act was proved. The pouring of gravel and concrete exceeded mere inconvenience and amounted to physical nuisance.
Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction and damages despite works having ceased
Permanent injunction issued notwithstanding completion of works, and general damages of Kshs. 1,000,000 plus exemplary damages of Kshs. 200,000 awarded.
The court held that completion of works does not defeat an injunction, following authorities where courts issued permanent injunctions after illegal structures were completed. Trespass being actionable per se, general damages were discretionary. Exemplary damages were warranted given the commercial nature of the project and the Defendant's disregard of the Plaintiff's demand letters, so as to deter high-handed conduct by contractors on private land.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act.
- Trespass to land is actionable per se without proof of special damage.
- Even with a water permit, a party must acquire an easement if works sit on land not held by the permit holder.
- A permanent injunction may issue even where the offending works are complete.
Court orders
#- 1.A Declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner and entitled to exclusive possession of LR No. Kiambaa/Thimbigua/5453.
- 2.A Declaration that the Defendant's entry, installation of a water pump, and construction of a gravel pathway on the suit property constituted an act of trespass and nuisance.
- 3.A Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, or agents from entering, trespassing, or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of the suit property now and in future.
- 4.General Damages for Trespass and Nuisance awarded to the Plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 1,000,000.
- 5.Exemplary Damages awarded in the sum of Kshs. 200,000.
- 6.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
- 7.Interest on the damages awarded at Court rates from the date of Judgment until full payment.
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 disputes relating to land (not expressly cited in the judgment)
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 is hereby issued that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner and entitled to exclusive possession of LR No. Kiambaa/Thimbigua/5453.
A Permanent Injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendant, its servants, or agents from entering, trespassing, or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of the suit property now and in future.
General Damages for Trespass and Nuisance are hereby awarded to the Plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 1,000,000.
Exemplary Damages are hereby awarded in the sum of Kshs. 200,000 due to the Defendant's high-handedness in ignoring the Plaintiff's demand letters.
Costs of this suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.
The Court emphasized that a wrongdoer cannot keep what he has taken simply because they can pay for it.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical errors in counsel's submissions citing the burden-of-proof case as 'nne Wambui Ndiritu' in one place and 'Anne Wambui Ndiritu' in the analysis section.
The submissions dates appear anomalous relative to the judgment date (Plaintiff's submissions dated 5/12/2025, Defendant's dated 20/02/2026, judgment delivered 4/05/2026) and the case number/neutral citation are not stated in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waruinge v China Road & Bridge Corporation (K) Limited (Environment and Land Case E124 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 2638 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2638/eng@2026-05-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.