Environment and Land court judge Ann Koross ruled the church erred by constructing semi-permanent structures without permission /FILE

A Machakos court has awarded Sh500,000 in general damages to the administrators of a deceased man's estate ruling that officials of a church trespassed their property.

Enjoying this article? Subscribe for unlimited access to premium sports coverage.
View Plans

Elizabeth Mbatha Kituku and Lucy Wavinya Kituku, acting as legal administrators of the late Martin Sikuku Kutuku's estate, filed suit against William Omole and Hudson Kibusu Musera.

The two were sued in their capacity as office bearers of Hope Christian Community Church.

During the hearing on October 6, 2025, Elizabeth testified that her deceased husband had followed all necessary procedures to secure the plot, including paying required fees and completing a survey.

The court heard that the patriarch was allotted the land in 1995.

Following his death, the administrators obtained a confirmed grant from the High Court, which led to the issuance of a title document for the suit property on November 16, 2021.

The defendants entered the property without permission, installing a water tank, a temporary tent structure and a mabati structure on the land.

The case proceeded as an undefended suit after the defendants failed to file opposing pleadings.

Environment and Land court judge Ann Koross ruled the church erred by constructing semi-permanent structures without permission.

"Trespass to land consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another," the judgment, delivered on March 3, read.

While the plaintiffs failed to prove an allegation regarding the alteration of land beacons, the court found the evidence of physical occupation to be undeniable.

The judge stated; "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the owner of land with the paper title is deemed to be in possession of the land".

Koross awarded Sh500,000 in general damages, describing the plaintiff's testimony as credible, unchallenged and corroborated by documentary evidence.

The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anyone claiming under them from dealing with, constructing upon or otherwise interfering with the property.

Additionally, the defendants were ordered to vacate the land within 90 days, removing any developments at their own cost, failing which the plaintiffs would be entitled to forcefully evict them.

The defendants were also ordered to bear the plaintiffs' costs for the suit.