Muema & another v Makasi (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4920 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court confirmed that a church that built on someone else's allotted plot must demolish its structure, pay damages, and cover legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether plot No. C.PDP (MKN/78/98B) (suit property) was repossessed from the Respondent and if so, whether it was ever allotted to the Appellants' church
- 2.Whether the Appellants were properly sued
- 3.Whether the trial magistrate was wrong in granting the reliefs which he granted to the Respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit property was repossessed and reallocated to the Appellants' church
There was neither repossession nor reallocation; the Respondent's allotment remained valid and was confirmed by a 2019 verification exercise by the County Government and the National Land Commission.
The Respondent was allotted the plot on 1st September 1998, paid requisite charges in 2002 and annual rent thereafter. The 2019 verification exercise confirmed him as the lawful allottee. PW2 testified that despite notices in the press, there has never been any repossession of any plot. The Appellants themselves admitted they had no allotment and were only awaiting one.
Whether the Appellants were properly sued in their individual capacities
Yes; the Respondent identified them from the police station as the trespassers who erected the structure, and the 1st Appellant had no certificate of registration of the church.
The Respondent got the names of the Appellants from the police station when investigating who had trespassed and put up a church on the suit property, and sued them as individual trespassers. The 1st Appellant admitted under cross-examination that he did not have a certificate of registration of Deliverance Church, so they could not shelter behind the church's trustees.
Whether the trial magistrate was wrong in granting the reliefs
No; the trial magistrate correctly granted all the reliefs since the Appellants had no basis to claim any portion of the Respondent's property.
The Respondent produced a search showing the plot was allotted to him; a surveyor confirmed the Appellants' temporary structure took up about half of the Respondent's ¾ acre plot. DW3 confirmed the Appellants' church had no letter of allotment and that occupation without a PDP is illegal. Only processing of a lease remained for the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider and evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while making allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
- A letter of allotment is incapable of conferring an interest in land, being more than an offer awaiting fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein; a mere offer without a letter of allotment is incomplete.
- Occupation of land without a PDP (Part Development Plan) is illegal.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.Judgment of the trial court (declaration of proprietorship, permanent injunction, general damages of Kshs.50,000, costs and interest, and order to remove structures and vacate within 7 days failing which eviction would issue) upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court)
- not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (Environment and Land Court, ELC Appeal No. E020 of 2024)
Relief refused
#The Appellants' appeal in its entirety
The court found no merit in the appeal; no repossession or reallocation of the suit property to the Appellants' church was proved.
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs 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.
It is therefore clear that there was neither repossession nor reallocation of the suit property.
A mere offer which is not accompanied by a letter of allotment is incomplete.
occupation of land without a PDP is illegal
Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the suit plot inconsistently as 'Plot No. C PDP (MKN/78/98/19B)' in the reliefs and as 'plot No. C.PDP (MKN/78/98B)' in the issues for determination.
Submissions dates appear chronologically inconsistent: Appellants' submissions dated 18th November 2025 and Respondent's dated 8th May 2026, while the appeal was from a judgment of 8th November 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muema & another v Makasi (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4920 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E020 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4920/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.