[2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including a certificate of title and demand notices, that he was the registered proprietor of L.R No. 8XX4/13 and entitled to immediate and exclusive possession. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Henry Mwasame Wanyonyi; Defendant: Peter Nyongesa; Defendant: John Wafula; Defendant: Mary Wanjala; Defendant: Moses Wekesa alias Acre Nane; Defendant: Manyasi Wekesa; Defendant: Samuel Bunyasi; Defendant: David Kisembe Nyongesa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case 2 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim allowed. Permanent injunction and eviction order granted.
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Eviction Orders, Title Registration, Right to Property
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Henry Mwasame Wanyonyi
Plaintiff
Peter Nyongesa
Defendant
John Wafula
Defendant
Mary Wanjala
Defendant
Moses Wekesa alias Acre Nane
Defendant
Manyasi Wekesa
Defendant
Samuel Bunyasi
Defendant
David Kisembe Nyongesa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful and exclusive owner of L.R No. 8XX4/13 entitled to immediate possession.
- 2 Whether the defendants trespassed onto the plaintiff's land without justification.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and eviction orders against the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including a certificate of title and demand notices, that he was the registered proprietor of L.R No. 8XX4/13 and entitled to immediate and exclusive possession. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, did not challenge the plaintiff's evidence. The law presumes the validity of the plaintiff's title unless impeached for fraud or illegality, which was not alleged or proved. The court held that the defendants' entry and occupation of the land constituted trespass, actionable per se, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought, including a permanent injunction and eviction order.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim allowed. Permanent injunction and eviction order granted.
Orders
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendants from entering, remaining, or erecting structures on L.R No. 8XX4/13.
- An eviction order is issued against the defendants to be enforced by a Court Bailiff in accordance with the law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
Wanyonyi v Nyongesa & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 2 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR) (16 July 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Environment and Land Case 2 of 2023
CK Nzili, J
July 16, 2025
Between
Henry Mwasame Wanyonyi
Plaintiff
and
Peter Nyongesa
1st Defendant
John Wafula
2nd Defendant
Mary Wanjala
3rd Defendant
Moses Wekesa alias Acre Nane
4th Defendant
Manyasi Wekesa
5th Defendant
Samuel Bunyasi
6th Defendant
David Kisembe Nyongesa
7th Defendant
Judgment
1. Before the court is a plaint dated 23/1/2023. The plaintiff, as the registered owner of L.R No. 8XX4/13 situated at Kiminini Sub-County, has sued the defendants for trespass and the erection of illegal structures thereon. He seeks:(a)A permanent injunction.(b)An eviction order.(c)The OCS Kiminini Police Station, OCS Sikhendu Police Station and the OCS Kapchonge Police Station, to ensure that the orders are complied with.
2. Despite service by way of substituted service, the defendants have not filed any memorandum of appearance or a defence.
3. At the trial, Henry Mwasame Wanyonyi testified as PW1. He relied on a witness statement dated 23/1/2023 as his evidence-in-chief. His testimony was that he purchased the suit land at a public auction following a default of loan payments by the initial allottees. PW1 said that the sellers of the suit land were the Agricultural Finance Corporation, who executed the transfer documents into his name on 23/12/2011. He blames the defendants for trespassing on the land and infringing on his right to property, as provided under Article 40 of the Constitution. PW1 relied on a copy of his ID Card, certified copies of a certificate of title for L.R No. 8XX4/13 and demand notices dated 10/3/2021 and 18/9/2022 as P. Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
4. Trespass refers to the intrusion into the private property of another, without any justification and the commission of acts of wastage. See Section 3(3) of the Trespass Act. In order to prove trespass, a claimant must prove immediate exclusive occupation of the suit land. A certificate of title issued by the Registrar upon registration under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act is to be taken as prima facie proof that the proprietor of the land has an indefeasible title that is not subject to challenge except on account of fraud, misrepresentation or issuance of title through a corrupt scheme.
5. In M'Ikiara M'Mukanya & another -vs- Gilbert Kabere M'Mbijiwe [1983] KECA 121 (KLR), the court held that the respondent had to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellants entered into the plot when it was in his possession and that he had a right to immediate possession. The court said that trespass was a tort of violation of the right to possession.
6. In this suit, the plaintiff has to prove that, he and not the defendants, have the right to immediate and exclusive possession. Trespass is actionable per se. A party need not prove any damage. A claimant has to prove that the defendants intentionally entered his plot with no right of entry. The plaintiff has produced a certificate of title issued to him on 23/12/2011. He has produced letters as P. Exhibit 3(a) and (b). The court is satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case to the required standards. Prayers No. (a) and (b) are allowed. An eviction order shall issue against the defendants to be enforced by a Court Bailiff in compliance with the law. Costs and expenses of the eviction are to be borne by the defendants. Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
7. Orders accordingly.
JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025. In the presence of:Court Assistant - DennisKulowa for Were for the plaintiff presentPlaintiff presentDefendants absentHON. C.K. NZILIJUDGE, ELC KITALE.