Before machinery enters a site, permission needs more than a signature from someone standing on the land. The person granting access must have the authority being claimed, and the work area must be connected to the correct parcel. A different local description does not necessarily identify different land.
Those questions drove Njuguna & 4 others v SS Mehta & Sons Limited; Maguo & 3 others, [2025] KEELC 18613 (KLR), decided by the Environment and Land Court at Malindi on 11 December 2025. Read the judgment, particularly paragraphs 30-48.
The contractor relied on occupiers' permission
The claim concerned excavation on land at Malindi in Kilifi County. The plaintiffs relied on registered ownership and evidence of damage. The contractor said it had leased a differently described quarry plot from people in longstanding occupation.
Its explanation included an agreement endorsed at the chief's office and an account of ancestral occupation. It disputed whether the plaintiffs had connected the excavated area to their registered parcel.
The court rejected that defence on the evidence before it. It found that the occupied portion formed part of the larger registered property, that the occupiers were not the plaintiffs' agents and that the contractor had excavated without the required owners' permission.
Paragraph 35 specifically addresses the due-diligence failure: a chief's letter alone was insufficient, and the contractor had not confirmed the purported quarry plot's registration at the registry.
A pending occupation claim was not an excavation licence
The occupiers' separate adverse-possession claim mattered, but it was not decided in the contractor's favour here.
They had been admitted through a 22 September 2023 joinder ruling, paragraphs 21-22, with costs in the cause. A later 7 December 2023 ruling, paragraphs 4-5, refused consolidation with their occupation proceedings and dismissed that application with costs.
The December 2025 judgment maintained the distinction between the registered owners' excavation claim and the occupiers' unresolved claim to part of the land. Someone seeking recognition of ownership is not necessarily able to authorise irreversible works as though that recognition has already been obtained.
Liability, compensation and punishment were different questions
The court declared the excavation a trespass and granted a permanent injunction against further trespass and excavation on the identified parcel.
Paragraph 42 expressly awards KSh 12 million in general damages, using diminution in value. However, final paragraph 48(c) prints "Kshs. 12,0000,000/-". This unresolved conflict in the operative amount keeps this article held for source clarification. Neither figure should be presented as the settled amount payable without an authoritative correction or decree resolving the discrepancy.
The court declined additional restoration and restitution relief as duplicative of the compensation awarded. It also rejected exemplary damages: the necessary conditions, including the alleged basis for punitive treatment, were not established. Costs and interest at court rates were awarded.
This was a civil liability decision, not a criminal conviction or a finding that every alleged form of wrongdoing had been proved.
Resolve the authority and location questions first
A contractor should ask for evidence connecting the proposed work area, the lease description and the registered parcel. Where those descriptions differ, appropriate survey and registry enquiries are needed before treating them as separate properties.
The advocate should then examine the lessor's authority and any pending proceedings. A local introduction or confirmation of occupation answers a different question from whether the person can grant the proposed rights.
The source contains inconsistent parcel references and dates. The article follows the final parcel identification without treating those discrepancies as resolved records. Later enforcement, correction of the damages figure and the separate occupation case's outcome remain unverified.
Put unresolved permission into the risk decision
Ask what available evidence ArdhiScore screening can reference in a dated parcel record about competing claims and proceedings, and what still requires official records or professional confirmation.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Screening does not grant excavation rights, replace a survey or obtain environmental and operating permissions. Its role is to inform the questions asked before physical works create a much harder dispute to unwind.