Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ogutu v Opere (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5374 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction and caution-removal orders, and dismissed the respondent’s suit, holding trespass was not proved.
Ndiritu v Ndiritu (Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 5341 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant failed to prove that the suit land was family, clan, or group land held for the benefit of other family members, or that the respondent’s registration created a customary trust. The evidence showed the land was a gift from the respondent’s grandfather to the respondent, registered directly in the respondent’s name as absolute proprietor. On that evidence, the trial court correctly dismissed the claim.
Source excerpt
Sudi v Khaemba (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E012 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 602 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the Defendant was one of the deceased’s widows, that the suit property originated as family land and was held for the benefit of the deceased’s family, and that the Defendant satisfied the elements of a customary trust. On that basis, the Plaintiff’s registered title was subject to the Defendant’s beneficial interest, making eviction unavailable.
Source excerpt
Kinyua & another v Gichu (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5308 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the Respondent held a valid registered title supported by sale and transfer documents, while the Appellants led no admissible evidence to prove fraud or customary trust. Their own evidence confirmed occupation and interference with the suit land, which supported the finding of trespass. The trial court’s decision was therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
John & another (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Kinaitore Deceased) v Kaburu & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E025 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5139 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the suit was a collateral attack on a valid and unchallenged certificate of confirmation of grant issued in the succession cause. Because the titles and prayers for cancellation and redistribution would necessarily impeach that grant and effectively reverse the High Court's succession orders, the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction. The preliminary objection therefore succeeded and the suit was struck out.
Source excerpt
Korir (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Cherono Chemor) v Cheruiyot & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4938 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The plaintiff established a prima facie case because the dispute concerns a family relationship and a customary trust claim over the suit land, and any transfer before trial could prejudice inheritance rights; the court therefore granted preservatory orders pending determination of the suit.
Source excerpt
Saiyuah v County Government of Narok & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E008 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5042 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the objection proceedings were filed by the petitioner on behalf of Karda Primary School, so he acquired no personal property interest in Transmara/Oloontare/37 and no constructive or customary trust arose. The land remained public school land registered in the name of the County Government in trust for the school. However, the National Land Commission received the petitioner’s complaint but failed to communicate reasons for its inability to determine it, thereby violating Article 47 and section 6(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. That constitutional breach justifi…
Source excerpt
Materian & another v Kisoso & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5026 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the petition was not barred by res judicata or limitation, but the petitioners failed to prove that the land was matrimonial property, that it was held in trust for them, or that they had any beneficial or overriding spousal interest. Without a legally recognizable proprietary interest, spousal consent was not required and the transfer could not be declared unlawful or unconstitutional. All substantive reliefs therefore failed.
Source excerpt
Makau v Munyao & another (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4919 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant failed to show any ground justifying stay of proceedings and failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction. Since the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the lower court suit proceeded, the motion lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Gichuki & another v Church Commissioner of Kenya (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5098 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court rejected the adverse possession claim because the Applicants failed to clearly prove the date and manner in which possession became adverse, especially in light of prior eviction proceedings. However, the court found the evidence overwhelmingly established that the land was family land subject to a customary trust in favour of the Applicants as descendants of the original owner, and that this trust constituted an overriding interest binding the registered title. On that basis, the Respondent’s title was revoked and the land ordered subdivided equally between the Applicants and the R…
Source excerpt
Explore more
