[2019] KEELC 3048 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant unlawfully encroached on his land (Machakos/Matuu/3374) and the public road by constructing permanent structures, as confirmed by the surveyor's report and the local council's correspondence. The Defendant failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3048 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Abdulrasul Hassani Sidi; Defendant: Mary Gatimu Muriuki
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 16 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff as prayed.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Land Encroachment, Permanent Injunction, Eviction Orders, Public Road Access
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdulrasul Hassani Sidi
Plaintiff
Mary Gatimu Muriuki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant unlawfully encroached on the Plaintiff's land and the public road.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and eviction order against the Defendant.
- 3 Whether the Defendant should demolish structures erected on the encroached land and public road.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant unlawfully encroached on his land (Machakos/Matuu/3374) and the public road by constructing permanent structures, as confirmed by the surveyor's report and the local council's correspondence. The Defendant failed to respond to the suit or contest the evidence. The Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor, is entitled to exclusive possession and protection of his property. The court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from further encroachment, an order directing the Defendant to open up the public road and demolish the structures, and an...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff as prayed.
Orders
- A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from encroaching, occupying, developing, or dealing with Machakos/Matuu/3374 and the public road between Machakos/Matuu/3374 and Machakos/Matuu/Plot 50.
- The Defendant is directed to open up the public road and demolish structures erected thereon; in default, the Plaintiff may demolish such structures at the Defendant's expense.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 16 OF 2017
ABDULRASUL HASSANI SIDI.....................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARY GATIMU MURIUKI........................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. In the Plaint dated 25th January, 2017, the Plaintiff averred that he is the registered proprietor of land known as Machakos/Matuu/3374 (the suit land); that the Defendant is registered as the proprietor of land known as Machakos/Matuu/Plot 50 and that the two parcels of land are separated by a public road.
2. It is the Plaintiff’s case that in total disregard of his rights, the Defendant has constructed a permanent structure on and through the public road and has also encroached on his land; that the encroachment by the Defendant on his land covers a portion measuring approximately 0. 012 Ha and that the said encroachment has blocked him from accessing his land.
3. The Plaintiff has sought in the Plaint for an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from encroaching on parcel of land known as Machakos/Matuu/3374 and the public road and for an order of eviction against the Defendant to issue.
4. Although the Defendant was served with the Summons to Enter Appearance and the Plaint, he neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence. The matter proceeded for hearing on 27th February, 2019 in his absence.
5. The Plaintiff, PW1, informed the court that he is the registered proprietor of land known as Machakos/Matuu/3374; that on the other hand, the Defendant is the owner of land known as Machakos/Matuu/Plot 50 and that the two parcels of land are separated by a road of access.
6. It was the evidence of PW1 that when the Defendant encroached on his land and the public road, he lodged a complaint with the then Matuu County Council; that the Defendant has refused to vacate the portion of the suit land that he has encroached on and that the orders of eviction should issue.
7. In support of his case, the Plaintiff produced in evidence the Title Deed for Machakos/Matuu/3374. The said Title Deed was issued in favour of the Plaintiff on 6th October, 2004. The Plaintiff also produced in evidence the report of the Machakos District Surveyor dated 26th March, 2012. In the said report, the Surveyor stated as follows:
“This is to inform you that a Surveyor from this office visited the above parcel of land (Machakos/Matuu/3374) and after taking measurements to ascertain the encroachment of the plot on the road reserve [sic]. The encroachment measures 7m by 18m an area of 0. 0126 Ha. Please note that the portion remaining is the one to be utilized in case of any construction.”
8. In his letter dated 26th June, 2013, the Works Officer of the then Town Council of Matuu wrote to the Defendant as follows:
“The council used official map (Matuu Registration Section Sheet No. 20A) and confirmed and marked the area you have encroached his plot as 7mx 18m. All parties agreed in PRINCIPLE that you have encroached. You agreed to remove your development which you have not done and the complainant is concerned about his full access to his plot. As such the council gives you the option to do the necessary in twenty one (21) days failure of which legal action will be taken against you.”
9. It will appear that the notice from the then Town Council of Masaku did not move the Defendant. Indeed, todate, the Defendant has neither responded to the said letter nor offered any evidence to the contrary.
10. The uncontroverted evidence before the court shows that the Defendant has encroached on the Plaintiff’s parcel of land by 7m by 18m, which is an area measuring 0. 0126 Ha. That is the area that the Defendant should vacate. Consequently, the court finds that the Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. The Plaintiff’s Plaint is therefore allowed in the following terms:
a. An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from taking possession, occupying, encroaching, developing and/or dealing with land parcel No. Machakos/Matuu/3374 together with public road running between land parcel Machakos/Matuu/3374 and Machakos/Matuu/Plot 50 in any manner whatsoever as to block the public road and infringe the Plaintiff’s rights.
b. An order is hereby issued directing the Defendant to open up the public road and to demolish structures erected thereon. In default of so doing the Plaintiff be at liberty to demolish such structures lying on the public road running between land parcel Machakos/Matuu/3374 and Machakos/Matuu/Plot 50 at the expense of the Defendant.
c. An order of eviction do issue against the Defendant from occupying Plaintiff’s property being land parcel No. Machakos/Matuu/3374 and further the Defendant does demolish structures erected on the Plaintiff’s said property.
d. The Defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE