[2010] KEHC 1968 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including the title deed, sale agreements, and green card, that she was the registered proprietor of the suit land. The defendant, having failed to enter appearance or file a defence, did not challenge the plaintiff's evidence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1968 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Beltina Chemtai Willington; Defendant: Roselyne Kimono
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 72 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof Due to Non Appearance by Defendant
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in prayers (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the plaint.
- Judges
- CA Ombija
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Trespass to Land, Injunctions, Ownership 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
Beltina Chemtai Willington
Plaintiff
Roselyne Kimono
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof Due to Non Appearance by Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of the suit land.
- 2 Whether the defendant unlawfully entered and occupied part of the plaintiff's land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders of eviction, injunction, costs, and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including the title deed, sale agreements, and green card, that she was the registered proprietor of the suit land. The defendant, having failed to enter appearance or file a defence, did not challenge the plaintiff's evidence. The court held that the defendant's entry and occupation of two acres of the plaintiff's land without any colour of right constituted actionable trespass. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to an order of eviction, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her land, costs, and interest as prayed in the plaint.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in prayers (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the plaint.
Orders
- The defendant shall be evicted from the two acres being part of title No. Elgon/Chemoge/678.
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE Civil Suit 72 of 2008
BELTINA CHEMTAI WILLINGTON ……………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ROSELYNE KIMONO ……………………………….………..DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
By a plaint dated 3rd September, 2008, the plaintiff herein Beltina Chemtai Wellington sued the defendant herein Roselyne Kimono.
The plaintiff sought judgment against the defendant for:-
(a)An order of eviction of the defendant from 2 acres being part of title No. Elgon Chemoge 1678.
(b)A temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s land.
(c)Costs
(d)Interest on (c) above.
(e)Any other relief this honourable court may deem fit to grant.
The defendant was served with Summons to Enter Appearance but failed to enter appearance or file defence. The matter thus proceeded by of formal proof.
The plaintiff testified that at all material times she was the sole proprietor of all that parcel of land known as title No. Elgon/Chemoge/678 measuring 2. 9 hectares or thereabout. As proof thereof she produced title deed as Exhibit P 1. She bought the said parcel land in two transactions:-
(i)The first portion on 4th November, 1994 at a consideration of 204,000/=
(ii)The second portion on 5th February, 1995 at a consideration of shs. 12,000. As proof thereof she tendered in evidence exhibits P2 (a) and P2 (b) respectively.
To buttress her ownership rights as aforestated she tendered in evidence the green card as exhibit 3.
It was the plaintiff’s case that in breach of his proprietory rights on or about 19th August 2008 the defendant without any colour of right entered into possession of his said parcel and occupied two (2) acres being part of his entitlement. To add salt to injury the defendant also constructed semi-permanent structures captured in photographs exhibited as P4.
In the premises, it was the plaintiff’s case that the defendant’s acts constitute trespass which is actionable perse hence this suit.
As I said earlier the defendant was served with summons to Enter appearance and failed to do file appearance or defence within the time prescribed by law. As it were there is evidence of the plaintiff in support of her case and no evidence on the part of the defendant in rebuttal.
I have carefully analyzed the available evidence on record. Having done do, I am of the persuasion that the plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probability.
Accordingly there shall be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in terms of prayer (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the plaint.
Dated and delivered at Kitale this 4th day of March, 2010.
N R O OMBIJA
JUDGE
Mr. M. Wafula for Munialo for plaintiff.