[2014] KEHC 1192 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property through a certificate of grant and title documents. The defendant, having failed to file a defence or demonstrate any legal right to remain on the property, was deemed a trespasser. The court held that under Article 40 of the Constitution,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1192 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dr. Ali Kolela Montet; Defendant: Moses Ekwi Elany
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 389 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed. Eviction order granted. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Trespass, Title to Land
- 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
Dr. Ali Kolela Montet
Plaintiff
Moses Ekwi Elany
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of Plot Ngong/Ngong/44327.
- 2 Whether the defendant is unlawfully occupying the plaintiff's property and should be evicted.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property through a certificate of grant and title documents. The defendant, having failed to file a defence or demonstrate any legal right to remain on the property, was deemed a trespasser. The court held that under Article 40 of the Constitution, the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy his property and that the defendant's continued occupation was unjustified. Consequently, the court granted the orders sought for eviction and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed. Eviction order granted. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
Orders
- The defendant shall vacate Plot Ngong/Ngong/44327 forthwith or be forcefully evicted.
- Costs to the plaintiff at the lower scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
No.30/2014
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
HC ELC CASE NO. 389 OF 2012
DR. ALI KOLELA MONTET ………………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOSES EKWIY ELANY …………….…………… DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
1. By a Plaint dated 4. 10. 2012, the Plaintiff prays for:-
An order against Defendant for eviction from thePlot Ngong/Ngong/44327,
Costs
Any other or further relief that the Hon. Court maydeem just and adequate to grant the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant was served with summons on 6. 2.2013 and affidavit of service was filed on 27. 3.2013. There being no defence filed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested for judgment on 27. 3.2013 and formal proof date was taken.
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE
3. On or about the year 1992 the Defendant was employed as the driver of late Iddi Malambu deceased uncle of the Plaintiff. The Defendant was using a house on parcel No.Ngong/Ngong/27038 owned by the above deceased. On the death of the said Iddi Malambu, Succession Cause No. Nairobi Suc. N0. 987/08 was lodged and the Plaintiff got share of the same estate in form of Ngong/Ngong/44327 where the house subject herein lies.
4. The Plaintiff has been unable to get possession of the same as the Defendant is still in occupation without any colour of right. The Plaintiff issued the Defendant with notice to vacate vide letter dated 6. 6.2011 but in vain. The Plaintiff sought assistance from the local chief, D.O. and Land Tribunal but was eventually advised to seek court assistance as they had no mandate to evict the Defendant. The Plaintiff holds the title of the subject matter. The Plaintiff has produced certificate of grant as P. Exhibit No.1, copy of title P. Exhibit 2 and notice to vacate dated 6. 6.2011 P. Exhibit No.3.
5. After going through the evidence and the pleadings herein plus all the Exhibits produced in evidence, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved his case on balance of probabilities. His title to the subject matter stands unimpugned and under Article 40 of the Constitution he is entitled to enjoy his property in the subject matter.
6. There is no justification for the Defendant to continue occupying the Plaintiff’s property without his consent. The Defendant is a trespasser and has to vacate the subject matter or he be forcefully evicted.
7. The court thus makes the following orders:
Prayers (a) and (b)of the Plaint are granted.
The Defendant shall vacate the suit property forthwith or he be evicted forcefully.
Costs to the Plaintiff at the lower scale since the suit is undefended.
Those are the orders of the court.
Signed and delivered at Machakos this28th day of November, 2014.
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE