Paramount Engineering (2005) Limited v Farm Engineering Industries Limited & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 367 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 4316 (KLR) (5 June 2025) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• Determining the costs of the legal proceedings, which were ordered to be paid by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants.
• Whether the Plaintiff is the registered owner of land parcel L.R. No. 18127 with a leasehold interest of 99 years from 1st April, 1992, as established by a Grant and Beacon Certificate.
• Whether land parcels L.R. No. 18127 and 18128 share a common boundary, supported by expert surveyor testimony and municipal council records.
• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought, including permanent injunctions to remove the fence and damages for trespass, based on established ownership and encroachment.
• Whether the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants encroached onto the Plaintiff's land by erecting a fence beyond their boundaries, denying the Plaintiff access to approximately 3 acres (1.05477 Ha) of the suit land.

Holdings

• The court determined that the Plaintiff, Paramount Engineering (2005) Limited, is the registered owner of land parcel L.R. No. 18127 measuring 3.102 hectares, based on evidence including a Grant I.R. 59205 and a Beacon certificate. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants denied this but failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the claim.
• The court granted the Plaintiff's requested reliefs: a permanent mandatory injunction to remove the offending fence and prohibit future trespass, general damages of Kshs 2,000,000/=, and costs of the suit. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Defendants did not participate in evidence or submissions.
• The court ruled that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants encroached on the Plaintiff's land by erecting a fence and wall beyond their boundaries. Expert evidence from PW2 confirmed the encroachment of approximately 1.267 hectares (3.13 acres), while the Defendants' reliance on outdated survey plan F/R 227/71 was invalidated by the superseding F/R 235/96.
• The court found that land parcels L.R. No. 18127 and 18128 share a common boundary, confirmed by expert testimony from PW2 (licensed surveyor) and a 2005 municipal letter. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants disputed this but did not present valid evidence to the contrary.

Remedies

• An order of permanent mandatory injunction requiring the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to remove the offending fence and cease acts of trespass, with ejection if non-compliant.
• Award of general damages amounting to Kenya Shillings 2,000,000 (Kshs.2,000,000/-) for trespass and denial of access to the encroached portion of the Plaintiff's land.
• A permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from trespassing on the Plaintiff's property (L.R. No. 18127) after the fence is removed.
• Order for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to bear the costs of the legal proceedings.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court applied the balance of probabilities standard, finding the Plaintiff's evidence (title documents, survey reports, and beacon certificates) sufficiently established the case for trespass and encroachment.
• The court determined the Plaintiff met the burden of proof by establishing ownership of L.R. No. 18127 and demonstrating the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants encroached on the land. The Defendants failed to produce valid evidence rebutting the encroachment claim or proving the authenticity of their title.
• The court presumed the Plaintiff's title valid under the Land Registration Act (Section 26) and the Defendants' failure to challenge survey plan F/R 235/96's validity. The Defendants' reliance on outdated survey plan F/R 222/71 was insufficient to rebut this presumption.

Precedent Name

• Christine Nyanchama Oanda v Catholic Diocese of Homa Bay Registered Trustees
• Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa vs KPLC Ltd & another

Cited Statute

• Land Registration Act
• Survey Regulations, 1994
• Survey Act
• Trespass Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• On the basis of the evidence placed before court, I find that the two parcels of land are adjoining on the ground and that they share a common boundary.
• Having determined that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit land which shares a common boundary with the Defendants' land and that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants encroached onto the suit land and are continuing with the trespass, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.
• From the documents produced as exhibits particularly the Grant, the Beacon certificate, and the survey report, it is clear that the Plaintiff owns land parcel No. L.R. 18127 measuring 3.102 Hectares.