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
Loyor v Eloo [2025] KEELC 4714 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court granted the plaintiff a declaration, permanent injunction, and Kshs 1,000,000 for trespass after finding unchallenged proof of ownership and interference.
Choge v Keter & another [2025] KEELC 5368 (KLR)
The court upheld the plaintiff’s title to the suit land, found the defendant’s occupation amounted to trespass, and dismissed the counter-claim.
Kilongosi v Kilongosi & 4 others [2025] KEHC 10575 (KLR)
The High Court at Machakos struck out a family land and succession-related suit for want of jurisdiction, holding the dispute belonged in the ELC and succession cause.
Magina & another v Osodio & 4 others [2025] KEELC 5156 (KLR)
The court ordered eviction of two defendants from parcels South Teso/Angoromo/1915 and 1916, finding the dispute was not a boundary matter.
Choge v Keter & 3 others [2025] KEELC 4866 (KLR)
The court declared the plaintiff the lawful owner of LR No. Plateau/Kipkabus Block 4(Lelmokwo)/26, found the defendants were trespassers, and ordered eviction and injunction.
In re Estate of Kitur Chepsungulgei (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 9092 (KLR)
The High Court at Eldoret stayed execution of a succession ruling over disputed land, citing parallel ELC proceedings and the risk of conflicting orders.
Aluoch v Mwai Comercial Agencies & another [2025] KEELC 4762 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court held that the applicant proved adverse possession over one acre of LR. No. PIAVY/1850 after full payment and over 12 years’ occupation.
Ng’ang’a & another v Ndeti & another [2025] KEELC 4735 (KLR)
The court found the plaintiffs proved ownership of the suit land and granted a permanent injunction and eviction orders against the defendants for trespass.
Otieno v Onyango & 5 others [2025] KEELC 5085 (KLR)
The court found that the 3rd respondent is the registered proprietor of the suit parcel, having acquired it as a bona fide purchaser for value from the 2nd respondent. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, as she did not demonstrate any proprietary interest or present evidence sufficient to challenge the registered title under the Land Registration Act. The court further held that any loss the appellant might suffer could be adequately compensated by damages, and she did not establish irreparable harm. Granting an injunction would unjustifiably limit the rights of the register…
Source excerpt
Sagalla Ranchers Limited v Makalo & 97 others [2025] KEELC 4622 (KLR)
The court found Sagalla Ranchers owned the land but dismissed the suit because trespass was not proved. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Explore more
