SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Sweet Pie Company Limited v Randu (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8516 (KLR) (26 November 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELC 8516 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
8516
Citation
[2025] KEELC 8516 (KLR)
Decided
26 November 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLand and EnvironmentPostureAppeal from the original trialCoramEK MAKORI, Kennedy, Mr. L.
The court found in favor of the Plainti on all issues.

Facts

Sweet Pie Company Limited (Plaintiff) claims that Daniel Hare Randu (Defendant) trespassed on their property and demolished a perimeter wall. The Plaintiff's employee, Mr. Samuel Charo, witnessed the incident on July 19, 2023. Mr. Fedinard Katunda confirmed that the Defendant sold land to the Plaintiff.

Issues

  • whether the Plainti has proven ownership of the suit property
  • whether the Plainti has demonstrated that the Defendant trespassed on the property
  • whether the Defendant's counterclaim is justied
  • who should bear the costs of this suit

Reasoning

The court ruled that the Plaintiff has proven ownership of the property and that the Defendant trespassed. The court also dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for trespass and property damage upheld
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Remedies

  • Plaintiff awarded damages for trespass and property damage
  • Defendant ordered to pay costs of the suit
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case