[2021] KEELC 2544 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 2544 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants are the joint registered proprietors of the suit land, having acquired it through a concluded succession process in which the respondents were beneficiaries and did not contest the distribution. The respondents were duly served with eviction notices in compliance with the Land...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 2544 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alice Waruguru Gikunju; Applicant: Pauline Wanjiku Gikunju; Respondent: Charles Karani Gikunju; Respondent: Evan Murimi Karani; Respondent: Kennedy Munene Karani; Respondent: James Wachira Karani; Respondent: Josphat Kinyua Gikunju; Respondent: Joel Murimi Gathungu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction and Eviction
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Succession Land Disputes, Trespass, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Proceedings Succession Land Disputes Trespass Injunctive Relief

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alice Waruguru Gikunju

Applicant

Pauline Wanjiku Gikunju

Applicant

Charles Karani Gikunju

Respondent

Evan Murimi Karani

Respondent

Kennedy Munene Karani

Respondent

James Wachira Karani

Respondent

Josphat Kinyua Gikunju

Respondent

Joel Murimi Gathungu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction and Eviction

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order of eviction against the respondents from land parcel MUTIRA/KAGUYU/6262.
  2. 2 Whether a miscellaneous application is a proper procedure for seeking eviction and injunctive relief in this context.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have any lawful right to remain on the suit land after succession proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are the joint registered proprietors of the suit land, having acquired it through a concluded succession process in which the respondents were beneficiaries and did not contest the distribution. The respondents were duly served with eviction notices in compliance with the Land Act, but failed to vacate or oppose the notices. The court held that the issue of ownership and entitlement to possession had already been determined in the succession proceedings, and no further substantive suit was necessary to enforce those rights. The respondents' continued occupation was therefore unlawful, and the applicants were entitled to the orders sought, including...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Temporary injunction issued restraining the respondents and their agents from causing nuisance, trespassing, insulting, tampering with animals or crops, or interfering with the applicants' interests pending determination.
  • Order of eviction granted against the 1st to 6th respondents from land parcel MUTIRA/KAGUYU/6262.