[2015] KEHC 6142 (KLR)
The Plaintiff established, through uncontroverted documentary evidence, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit property. The Defendants, having failed to appear or file a defence, did not challenge the Plaintiff's evidence that they unlawfully encroached and trespassed on the land. The court found that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6142 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Barnabas Mutua Mumbu; Defendant: Mbalu Mbithi; Defendant: Mumo Mbalu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 230 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Formal Proof After Interlocutory Judgment Due to Non Appearance by Defendants
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed in terms of prayers for permanent injunction, eviction, and costs; mesne profits denied.
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Permanent Injunction, Eviction, Mesne Profits
- 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
Barnabas Mutua Mumbu
Plaintiff
Mbalu Mbithi
Defendant
Mumo Mbalu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Formal Proof After Interlocutory Judgment Due to Non Appearance by Defendants
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful registered owner of land parcel No. Mavindini/Mavindini/1283.
- 2 Whether the Defendants have unlawfully encroached and trespassed on the Plaintiff's land.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and eviction orders against the Defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The Plaintiff established, through uncontroverted documentary evidence, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit property. The Defendants, having failed to appear or file a defence, did not challenge the Plaintiff's evidence that they unlawfully encroached and trespassed on the land. The court found that the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the property and to an order of eviction. The claim for mesne profits was denied due to lack of quantification. The Plaintiff's case succeeded in terms of the prayers for injunction, eviction, and costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed in terms of prayers for permanent injunction, eviction, and costs; mesne profits denied.
Orders
- A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, trespassing and or in any other manner interfering with land parcel No. Mavindini/Mavindini/1283 is granted.
- An order of eviction against the Defendants is granted; they are to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL CASE NO. 230 OF 2012
BARNABAS MUTUA MUMBU……….……..…… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MBALU MBITHI
MUMO MBALU………….……….…… DEFENDANTS
J U D G M E N T
The Plaintiff, Barnabas Mutua Mumbu is the registered owner of land parcel No. Mavindini/Mavindini/1283 (hereinafter suit property). The Plaintiff’s case is that he purchased the suit property from the 1st Defendant and lived there peacefully from 1985 up to the year 1994. That the 2nd Defendant who is a son to the 1st Defendant has now encroached on the suit land and put up a temporary structure there. The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of having resulted to use of force and crude weapons to keep him away from his land.
The Plaintiff prays for orders against the 1st and 2nd Defendant jointly and severally for:-
“A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, trespassing and or in any other manner interfering with the land parcel No. Mavindini/Mavindini/1283.
An order of eviction against the 2nd and or 1st Defendant ordering that he vacates and delivers vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.
Mesneprofits from the year 2005 until the date of delivery of vacant possession.
Costs and interests of this suit.
Any other relief as the court may deem just to issue.”
The Defendants did not enter appearance or file any defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 10/8/12. Thereafter the case proceeded to formal proof.
The Plaintiff’s evidence that he is the registered owner of the suit property is supported by documentary evidence. The Plaintiff produced the sale agreement, the Title Deed No. Mavindini/Mavindini/1283 and a certificate of official search as exhibits. These documents show that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the said property.
The Plaintiff’s evidence that upon purchase of the land he took vacant possession of the suit property and started cultivating and grazing his animals there is not controverted by any other evidence. The Plaintiff’s evidence that both Defendant 1 and 2 have encroached on the suit property and settled their families there also remains uncontroverted. Although the Plaintiff gave evidence that the Defendants guard the suit property with a panga and have prevented him from using the said land, the Plaintiff did not quantify his loss.
The Plaintiff has proved his case except for the prayer for mesne profits. Consequently, I allow the Plaintiff’s case in terms of prayer No. 1, 2, and 4.
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 11thday of Februay2015.
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE