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

Onyango & another v Makokha (Environment and Land Appeal E062 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1713 (KLR) (4 March 2026) (Judgment)

[2026] KEELC 1713 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1713
Citation
[2026] KEELC 1713 (KLR)
Decided
4 March 2026
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

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and allowing the defendant's counterclaimCoramV. Amboko (SRM)
The court held that the trial court was not right in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and allowing the defendant's counterclaim.

Facts

The plaintiffs claim to own land parcel Butsotso/Indalagasia/6840, which they purchased from Patrick Mbayaki Masinde. The defendant, Rachel Makokha, claims to own the land based on a sale agreement with Masinde. The plaintiffs allege that Makokha unlawfully entered and constructed on the land.

Issues

  • Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and allowing the defendant's counterclaim.
  • Whether the plaintiffs' title was obtained lawfully and whether the defendant was entitled to the suit property.

Reasoning

The court found that the plaintiffs' title was obtained lawfully and that the defendant was not entitled to the suit property.

Outcome

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Land Registration Act
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (7)
  • Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others v. Attorney General
  • Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina
  • Aliaza v Saul
  • Willy Kimutai Kitilit v Michael Kibet
  • Maina & 87 others v Kagiri
  • Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited
  • Alberta Mae Gacie v Attorney General
⚠ 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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case