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.
Mwinyi v Bhai & another [2025] KECA 1309 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant, having purchased only a house without land, had no right to demolish and reconstruct a new structure on the respondents' land without their consent. The concept of 'house without land' does not confer proprietary rights over the land itself, and any alteration or reconstruction requires the landowner's approval. The appellant's actions in demolishing the original house and constructing a new one without consent constituted trespass. The court further found that the tort of trespass was a continuing injury, so the suit was not time-barred despite th…
Source excerpt
Emfil Limited v Safaricom Limited [2025] KECA 1331 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove its claim of trespass against the respondent because, at the time the respondent entered into the lease and erected the mast, the registered proprietor of the suit property was Jua Maisha Limited, and the respondent had no notice of any adverse claim or subsisting court order. The appellant did not produce a title to the suit property nor demonstrate actual or constructive possession at the material time. The court further found that the appellant did not specifically plead or strictly prove its claim for mesne profits, as required b…
Source excerpt
Mbuthi v Muoki & 2 others [2025] KEELC 5351 (KLR)
The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants did not meet the threshold of a pure point of law as established in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd. The issues of whether the Plaintiff purchased the land, altered agreements, or whether there are pending or previously determined suits involve contested facts that require evidence and cannot be determined at the preliminary objection stage. On the issue of res judicata, the court held that claims based on trespass are continuing causes of action, and each fresh act of trespass gives rise…
Source excerpt
Leukupe v Kenya Wildlife Service [2025] KEHC 10655 (KLR)
The High Court at Isiolo dismissed an appeal over injuries from a hyena attack, holding the appellant had entered a protected area with livestock without permission.
Wanyonyi v Nyongesa & 6 others [2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)
The court found the plaintiff proved title and immediate possession of the land, held the defendants trespassed, and granted injunction and eviction orders.
Bajaber Limited v Ramadhan & another [2025] KEELC 5241 (KLR)
The court found Bajaber Limited proved ownership of L.R. No. MN/III/1883 and that the defendants trespassed. Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were granted.
Maiyebei v Chesebe [2025] KEELC 5294 (KLR)
The court found that although the agreement for the sale of the suit land between the Appellant and Respondent was not in writing as required by law, the Respondent's payment of the purchase price, settlement of the Appellant's outstanding loan, and occupation and development of the land established a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The Appellant's conduct, including permitting the Respondent's occupation and failing to provide a credible explanation for the Respondent's financial contributions, indicated a common intention to transfer the land. The court held that the doctrines o…
Source excerpt
Mwangi v Kihara & 10 others [2025] KEELC 5227 (KLR)
The court allowed substituted service for intended defendants in a land boundary dispute and dismissed the Plaintiff’s bid to strike out the defence.
Nyamu & 12 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2025] KEELC 5261 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit land was available for allocation as unalienated government land and that due process was followed in the allocation. Most plaintiffs did not produce sufficient documentary evidence of application, payment, or compliance with allocation conditions. The allocation process was casual, lacking proper written instructions, timely payment of stand premiums, and development of the land. The court held that the root of the plaintiffs' titles was not established as genuine and valid, and that the 2nd defendant was not a trespasser, as…
Source excerpt
Explore more
