[2020] KEELC 809 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 809 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants had properly served their amended defence and counter-claim on the plaintiff's counsel, and that the plaintiff failed to file a defence to the counter-claim within the time required by law. As a result, interlocutory judgment was properly entered against the plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 809 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alfonse Wanjala Masinde; Defendant: Altaf Abdulali Shariff Jivraj; Defendant: Nazmudin Abdulali Shariff Jivraj; Defendant: The County Government of Bungoma; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: The Hon Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 23 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Application and Directions After Entry of Interlocutory Judgment on Counter Claim
Outcome
Interlocutory judgment on the counter-claim upheld; directions issued for further conduct of the suit.
Legal Topics
Title Registration, Fraudulent Transfer, Counter Claims, Interlocutory Judgment
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Title Registration Fraudulent Transfer Counter Claims Interlocutory Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfonse Wanjala Masinde

Plaintiff

Altaf Abdulali Shariff Jivraj

Defendant

Nazmudin Abdulali Shariff Jivraj

Defendant

The County Government of Bungoma

Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

The Hon Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Interlocutory Application and Directions After Entry of Interlocutory Judgment on Counter Claim

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of land parcel BUNGOMA/TOWNSHIP/837.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants acquired title to the suit property fraudulently or for valuable consideration.
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory judgment on the counter-claim was properly entered against the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants had properly served their amended defence and counter-claim on the plaintiff's counsel, and that the plaintiff failed to file a defence to the counter-claim within the time required by law. As a result, interlocutory judgment was properly entered against the plaintiff in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants for the specified sum, pursuant to Order 10 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The interlocutory judgment had not been set aside, entitling the 1st and 2nd defendants to proceed to formal proof for assessment of damages. The court also held that the plaintiff could, if he wished, donate and file a Power of Attorney to appoint an...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory judgment on the counter-claim upheld; directions issued for further conduct of the suit.

Orders

  • The plaintiff has 30 days to donate and file a Power of Attorney if he so wishes.
  • The plaintiff is allowed to file and serve a list of any documents within 15 days from today.