Koyo v Agunda (Environment and Land Appeal E058 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3803 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu dismissed a land appeal, confirming that unchallenged tribunal decisions and succession transmissions give valid title, and trespass claims never expire.
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 learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in holding that the Respondent had a valid and procedurally acquired title
- 2.Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in misapprehending the nature of the Appellant's case
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent had a valid and procedurally acquired title
The trial court did not err; the Respondent's title was based on a Tribunal decision adopted as a court order and transmission through succession, neither of which the Appellant ever challenged
The Respondent pleaded and proved acquisition through transmission in Succession Cause No. 426 of 2019, supported by a title deed and certificate of confirmation of grant. The Land Registrar confirmed registration was based on a court order. The Appellant never challenged the Tribunal proceedings, the adoption of the Tribunal's decision by the Magistrate's court, or the succession cause, raising the nullity issue only in appeal submissions, which the court declined to entertain as the authorities cited arose from judicial review proceedings.
Whether the trial court misapprehended the nature of the Appellant's case
It did not. The Appellant, having no title, no pleaded adverse possession claim and no pleaded fraud, had no locus to invoke limitation; the Respondent's claim sounded in trespass, a continuing tort not subject to limitation
The Appellant disclaimed adverse possession yet relied on section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court held he holds no title, does not claim title by adverse possession, and pleaded no fraud, so limitation did not avail him. The Respondent's claim was based on trespass and eviction, and trespass is a continuing tort that cannot be time-barred while the trespasser remains unlawfully on the land.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusion while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- An appellate court cannot declare Tribunal proceedings a nullity on the basis of submissions alone where no challenge to those proceedings was pleaded or brought
- Trespass is a continuing tort which cannot be time-barred for as long as the trespasser remains on the land unlawfully
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs are awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Kisumu (Environment and Land)
- CMC E&L Case No. E098 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from the magistrates' court (Memorandum of Appeal dated 24th July, 2024)
Relief refused
#The Appellant's prayer to set aside the trial court judgment (permanent injunction, eviction and costs)
The Appellant did not challenge the Tribunal proceedings or the succession cause that transmitted the land to the Respondent, and no evidence supported his claim of ancestral entitlement or limitation
Costs
Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
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 appeal is dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
These particulars constitute a continuous or continuing tort of trespass which cannot be time-barred and/or subject to limitation for as long as the trespasser remains on the land unlawfully.
This court cannot proceed to declare the proceedings and decision of the Tribunal and the resultant judgment a nullity on the basis of the submission in this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not print the Appellant's name in the title or coram; the parties are identified only as Appellant and Respondent, though the Respondent is named as Joseph Ochieng Agunda
Date discrepancy in the appeal record: the Amended Memorandum of Appeal is dated 25th January, 2026 and submissions dated March 2026 were heard before a judgment of 18th June 2026, while the memorandum of appeal is dated 24th July 2024; the chronology appears internally consistent but the case number of the appeal itself is not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koyo v Agunda (Environment and Land Appeal E058 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kisumu E&L Appeal (Amended Memorandum of Appeal dated 25th January, 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3803/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.