[2018] KEELC 3515 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he lawfully purchased Plot No. 1 in Mumbuni market from the Defendants by virtue of a sale agreement dated 20th March, 2007. The Defendants failed to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence by not filing a Defence or entering appearance. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3515 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bernard Maundu Mbindyo; Defendant: James Kiilu Katitu; Defendant: David Ndungo Kivuvo; Defendant: Mutava Musau (operating under the name Ngwatanio Ya Anake Ma Mumbuni)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 48 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaint allowed as prayed.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Sale of Land, Trespass, 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
Bernard Maundu Mbindyo
Plaintiff
James Kiilu Katitu
Defendant
David Ndungo Kivuvo
Defendant
Mutava Musau (operating under the name Ngwatanio Ya Anake Ma Mumbuni)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of Plot No. 1 in Mumbuni market.
- 2 Whether the Defendants trespassed on the Plaintiff's land.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he lawfully purchased Plot No. 1 in Mumbuni market from the Defendants by virtue of a sale agreement dated 20th March, 2007. The Defendants failed to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence by not filing a Defence or entering appearance. The Plaintiff's possession, development of the land, and payment of rates further supported his claim. The court held that the Plaintiff is entitled to exclusive ownership of the suit land and is entitled to injunctive relief restraining the Defendants from trespassing, as well as removal of any building materials deposited by the Defendants.
Court Disposition
Plaint allowed as prayed.
Orders
- An injunction is issued restraining the Defendants from trespassing on Plot No. 1, Mumbuni market.
- The Defendants are ordered to remove any building materials deposited on the suit land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 48 OF 2016
BERNARD MAUNDU MBINDYO .............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES KIILU KATITU.......................................1ST DEFENDANT
DAVID NDUNGO KIVUVO ...............................2ND DEFENDANT
MUTAVA MUSAU (operating under the name
NGWATANIO YA ANAKE MA MUMBUNI)....3RD DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. In the Plaint dated 1st May, 2016, the Plaintiff averred that on 20th March, 2007, the 1st and 2nd Defendants sold to him plot number 1 situated at Mumbuni market for Kshs. 15,000; that he took possession of the land and developed it and that the Defendants have trespassed on the land claiming that they only sold a portion of the land to the Plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff is seeking for an injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing on the suit land. The Plaintiff also wants the Defendants to be ordered to remove the building materials that they have deposited on the suit land.
3. The Defendants neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence. The matter proceeded for hearing on 1st February, 2018.
4. The Plaintiff, PW1, informed the court that he lives in Mumbuni and that he is a businessman at Mumbuni market in Mwala; that on 20th March, 2007 he bought the suit land from the 1st and 2nd Defendants and that he has been planting dry maize and cash crops on the land until May, 2016 when the Defendants started trespassing on the land. It was the evidence of PW1 that the suit land is within a market and that he pays rates to the county government.
5. The Plaintiff produced in evidence the Sale Agreement dated 20th March, 2007 that he entered into with the Defendants in respect to the suit land.
6. The Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the right to own property is protected under Article 40; that the protection to own property can be exercised through injunctive orders as provided for under Section 13(7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and the suit should be allowed.
7. The evidence before me shows that the Plaintiff purchased Plot No. 1 in Mumbuni market from the Defendants vide an agreement dated 20th March, 2007. The Defendants did not file a Defence to rebut that averment. Having not rebutted the Plaintiff’s evidence, I am convinced that indeed it is the Plaintiff who is entitled to the suit land to the exclusion of the Defendants.
8. For those reasons, I find and hold that the Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probability. I therefore allow the Plaint dated 1st May, 2016 as prayed.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE