[2019] KEELC 2158 (KLR)
The court found that while the plaintiff established ownership of the suit property, he failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing the nature and extent of the defendant's alleged interference or trespass. The pleadings and oral testimony did not disclose specific acts by the defendant that would warrant the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2158 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Athman Kuta; Defendant: Batodo Hanga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 281 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed
- Judges
- JO Olola
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Trespass, Ownership of Land, Permanent Injunction
- 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
Athman Kuta
Plaintiff
Batodo Hanga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered and absolute owner of the suit property.
- 2 Whether the defendant trespassed or encroached upon the suit property and constructed illegal structures without consent.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders of eviction and a permanent injunction against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the plaintiff established ownership of the suit property, he failed to provide sufficient evidence detailing the nature and extent of the defendant's alleged interference or trespass. The pleadings and oral testimony did not disclose specific acts by the defendant that would warrant the grant of eviction or injunctive orders. The court emphasized that the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff, even in an undefended suit, and that mere assertions without substantiating evidence are insufficient to obtain the relief sought. Consequently, the court was not persuaded that the plaintiff's rights had been infringed in a manner requiring judicial protection,...
Court Disposition
suit dismissed
Orders
- The suit is struck out with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CASE NO. 281 OF 2016
ATHMAN KUTA...................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BATODO HANGA.............................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. By a Plaint dated and filed herein on 19th October 2016, Athuman Kuta(the Plaintiff) prays for orders of eviction against the Defendant as well as a permanent injunction to restrain him from trespassing, and or encroaching upon all that parcel of land known as Kilifi/Mavueni 3B/992 (the suit property).
2. It is the Plaintiff’s case that he is the registered and absolute owner of the suit property. He accuses the Defendant of trespassing thereon and putting up illegal structures which he has refused to remove to-date.
3. The Defendant Batodo Hanga did not enter appearance and/or file a defence to the Plaintiff’s claim and this matter therefor proceeded by way of formal proof.
4. Testifying as the sole witness in his case, the Plaintiff told the Court that he has been the registered owner of the suit property since the 1990s when it was registered in his name. Sometime in 2016, the Defendant who is his neighbour started interfering with the property. Initially, the Plaintiff went and reported the matter to the Chief but the Defendant refused to stop the constructions he was carrying out on the land. In support of his case, the Plaintiff produced a copy of a Title Deed issued in his name on 10th December 2014.
5. I have perused and considered the pleadings herein. I have also considered the Plaintiff’s sole testimony and the evidence adduced before the Court.
6. The Plaintiff avers that he is the registered owner of the suit property and accuses the Defendant of encroaching thereon and proceeding to construct certain structures thereon without his consent.
7. While I was not left in doubt that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit property it was not clear to me how the Defendant had interfered with the Plaintiffs land to warrant the issuance of the orders sought herein. A perusal of a brief statement filed herein by the Plaintiff only shows that the Defendant was interfering with the suit property. The nature of that interference is neither disclosed in the Statement nor in the Oral testimony given before this Court.
8. As a result, I was not persuaded that the Defendant has infringed on the Plaintiff’s rights in a manner that would require any protection by the Court.
9. Accordingly and even though this suit was undefended, I did not find any merit therein. The same is struck out with no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi this 30th day of July, 2019.
J.O. OLOLA
JUDGE