Lake Basin Development Authority v Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) & County Government of Bungoma (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed both a landowner's trespass claim and a county's challenge to a land allotment because neither side brought enough evidence to prove its case.
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 was entitled to the entire suit land or only a portion thereof
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff has proved that the Defendant trespassed onto its land
- 3.Whether the title held by the Plaintiff should be cancelled as prayed in the counterclaims by the Interested Party
- 4.What orders to make
- 5.Costs
Key legal issues
#Extent of the Plaintiff's entitlement to the suit land
The Plaintiff was allocated only a portion measuring 13.4 hectares of parcel EAST BUKUSU/WEST SANG'ALO/989, not the entire suit land
The plaint described the land as the 13.4Ha plot allotted by the Letter of Allotment dated 23/11/2016. PW1 conceded in cross-examination that Exhibit P5 allocated 40 acres and not the entire suit land, and that the whole parcel measured about 60 acres. The certificate of official search showed the whole parcel, measuring 25.37 Ha, registered in the name of the County Council of Bungoma since 1978.
Whether the Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiff's land
Trespass was not proved
The elements of trespass require unauthorized entry or interference with possession. PW1 admitted she had not produced documents showing boundaries and that it was not possible to tell from the documents whether the Defendant had trespassed. No surveyor's report was produced and the photographs did not show unlawful activities by the Defendant on the land claimed.
Whether the Plaintiff's title/allotment should be cancelled
The Interested Party's counterclaim for cancellation of the allotment was dismissed for want of proof
The Interested Party pleaded that the allotment by the National Land Commission was irregular, unlawful and unconstitutional for lack of consultation and concurrence, but called no witness and produced no evidence. Allegations must be proved on a balance of probabilities; unproved allegations cannot ground cancellation of an allotment.
Legal principles established
#- Trespass to land is constituted by an unjustified interference with possession of land and must be proved by evidence
- A party alleging irregular or unconstitutional allotment bears the burden of proving it
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.The counterclaim by the Interested Party is dismissed
- 3.Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant to be borne by the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution implied; not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Mandatory injunction and eviction orders against the Defendant
Trespass not proved; no evidence the Defendant interfered with the 13.4 hectares allocated to the Plaintiff
General damages for trespass
Trespass not proved
Interested Party's counterclaim for cancellation/nullification of the allotment
Interested Party called no witness and produced no evidence of irregular, unlawful or unconstitutional allotment
Costs
Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant to be borne by the Plaintiff.
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.
Trespass to land is constituted by an unjustified interference with the possession of land.
The Plaintiff produced no evidence to show that the Defendant interfered with the 13.4 hectares portion allocated to it.
The Interested Party called no witness and produced no evidence to prove the allegation of unlawful, irregular and unconstitutional allotment.
(i) The suit is dismissed. (ii) The counterclaim by the Interested Party is dismissed. (iii) Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant to be borne by the Plaintiff.
Issues in the judgment
#Cap number of the LBDA Act given inconsistently as Cap 422 and Cap 442
Defendant's list of documents dated 6th September, 2026, after judgment date context
Plan number cited as W62/2012/2 in plaint and 262/2012/2 in analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lake Basin Development Authority v Registered Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) & County Government of Bungoma (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 46 of 2019 (Formerly Bungoma Land Case No. 23 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5893/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.