[2020] KEELC 50 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 50 (KLR)

The court found that the registered proprietor of LP No. N/W/Mayoni/845 was a third party (Nicholas Wabuyabo, deceased), whose administrators were not parties to the suit, and thus no orders could be made against them. Neither the plaintiff nor the 2nd defendant provided documentary evidence to prove ownership of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 50 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bakari Makokha; Defendant: Sylvester Odhiambo Wabuyabo; Defendant: Ali Abdalla Ali
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 220 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit and 2nd defendant's counter-claim dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Land Registration, Boundary Disputes, Title Challenges
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Registration Boundary Disputes Title Challenges

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakari Makokha

Plaintiff

Sylvester Odhiambo Wabuyabo

Defendant

Ali Abdalla Ali

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to correction of boundaries between LP Nos. N/W/Mayoni/1109, 845 and 1108.
  2. 2 Whether the registration of the deceased father of the 1st defendant as proprietor of LP No. N/W/Mayoni/845 was fraudulent or unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff and 2nd defendant proved ownership of their respective parcels of land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the registered proprietor of LP No. N/W/Mayoni/845 was a third party (Nicholas Wabuyabo, deceased), whose administrators were not parties to the suit, and thus no orders could be made against them. Neither the plaintiff nor the 2nd defendant provided documentary evidence to prove ownership of their respective parcels. The dispute was essentially a boundary issue, and the parties were advised to resolve it with the Land Registrar. The plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities, and the 2nd defendant failed to prove his counter-claim. Both claims were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit and 2nd defendant's counter-claim dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • The 2nd defendant's counter-claim is dismissed.