[2020] KEELC 3559 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit land, S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609, and produced a valid title deed. The defendant did not contest the claim or provide any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal acquisition of the title. The Land Registration Act provides that a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3559 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Amos Shikomera Ndakwa; Defendant: Samuel Odhiambo Lumbasi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 279 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership, Title Registration, Trespass, Injunctions, Land Disputes
- 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
Amos Shikomera Ndakwa
Plaintiff
Samuel Odhiambo Lumbasi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful and registered proprietor of parcel S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609.
- 2 Whether the defendant unlawfully trespassed onto the plaintiff's land and interfered with his use and enjoyment of the property.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit land, S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609, and produced a valid title deed. The defendant did not contest the claim or provide any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal acquisition of the title. The Land Registration Act provides that a registered proprietor's title is absolute and indefeasible except in cases of fraud or illegality, none of which were established by the defendant. The plaintiff's evidence of trespass and interference by the defendant was uncontroverted. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to a permanent injunction...
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, heirs, and personal representatives from trespassing onto, grazing cattle, interfering with, tilling, constructing, disposing of, or in any other manner dealing with parcel S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 279 OF 2017
AMOS SHIKOMERA NDAKWA....................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAMUEL ODHIAMBO LUMBASI..............DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff avers that at all material times he is the registered proprietor of parcel of land known as S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609. The plaintiff avers that the defendant on 15/6/2017 or thereabouts illegally and unlawfully without any colour of right or justification in law trespassed onto of suit land herein known as S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609 forcibly uprooted cane and proceeded to plough and plant thereon sweet potatoes and graze his cattle on the said suit land which action has deprived the plaintiff the use and peaceful enjoyment of the said parcel of land thereby causing him loss and damage. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant does not have any registrable and or beneficial interest over the suit land herein. The plaintiff further avers that he acquired acquisition and obtained title of the suit land legally and procedurally from Luka Muzami Sachita on 12th July, 2006 for a valuable consideration and since 2006 or thereabouts he has been growing cane delivered to ~West Kenya Sugar Company Ltd. The plaintiff further avers that he jointly with the said Luka Muzami Sachita and successfully lodged a complaint against the defendant before the then Malava Land Disputes Tribunal which was later challenged by the defendant herein in the then Western Provincial Lands Disputes Committee which upheld the decision of the then Malava land Disputes Tribunal adopted in Kakamega CMCC Award No. 87 of 2007 as the judgment of the court. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant herein appealed against the said judgment in Kakamega HCCA No. 25 of 2008 which was on 20th April, 2015 dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant continues to trespass onto the suit land despite having been warned by the Area Chief. The plaintiff prays for an order of permanent injunction be issued to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his servants, agents, heirs and personal representatives from trespassing onto, grazing cattle, interfering with, tilling, constructing, disposing off or in other manner dealing with the parcel of land known as S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609. The plaintiff prays for orders:-
(a) The plaintiff prays for an order of permanent injunction be issued to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his servants, agents, heirs and personal representatives from trespassing onto, grazing cattle, interfering with, tilling, constructing, disposing off or in other manner dealing with the parcel of land known as S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609.
(b) Costs of this suit.
This court has carefully considered the evidence and submissions therein. The Land Registration Act is very clear on issues of ownership of land and Section 24(a) of the Land Registration Act provides as follows:
“Subject to this Act, the registration of a person as the proprietor of land shall vest in that person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto.”
Section 26 (1) of the Land Registration Act states as follows:
“The Certificate of Title issued by the Registrar upon registration … shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner… and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge except –
a. On the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; or
b. Where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.”
The law is clear that, the Certificate of Title issued by the Registrar upon registration shall be taken by all courts as prima facie evidence that the person named as proprietor of the land is the absolute and indefeasible owner and the title of that proprietor shall not be subject to challenge except – On the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person is proved to be a party; or Where the certificate of title has been acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme.
This court in considering this matter referred to the case of Elijah Makeri Nyangw’ra –vs- Stephen Mungai Njuguna & Another (2013) eKLR where the court held that the title in the hands of an innocent third party can be impugned if it is proved that the title was obtained illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. The Judge in the case while considering the application of section 26(1) (a) and (b) of the Land Registration Act rendered himself as follows:-
“--------------the law is extremely protective of title and provides only two instances for challenge of title. The first is where the title is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation to which the person must be proved to be a party. The second is where the certificate of title has been acquired through a corrupt scheme.”
It is a finding of fact the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Land parcel No. S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609. The plaintiff produced a copy of the title deed. The plaintiff testified that the defendant on 15th June 2017 or thereabouts illegally and unlawfully without any colour of right or justification in law trespassed onto of suit land herein known as S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609 forcibly uprooted cane and proceeded to plough and plant thereon sweet potatoes and graze his cattle on the said suit land which action has deprived the plaintiff the use and peaceful enjoyment of the said parcel of land thereby causing him loss and damage. The defendant failed to attend court to give oral evidence and offered no defence. The plaintiff title is indefeasible and can only be challenged if it was obtained through a fraudulent scheme which the defendant has not done. I find the plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities and I grant the following orders;
(c) An order of permanent injunction be issued to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his servants, agents, heirs and personal representatives from trespassing onto, grazing cattle, interfering with, tilling, constructing, disposing off or in other manner dealing with the parcel of land known as S/Kabras/Shamberere/3609.
1. No orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS 19TH FEBRUARY 2020.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE