[2020] KEELRC 294 (KLR)

[2020] KEELRC 294 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff was the lawfully registered proprietor of East Ugenya/Kathieno 'B'/793, having acquired the land through a lawful succession process. There was no evidence that the registration had been set aside or revoked. The 1st Defendant's claim, based on an alleged purchase by his late wife,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELRC 294 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Ochola Musingo; Defendant: Wellingtone Mutula Muholo alias Hannington Fredrick Mutula; Defendant: Vincent Otieno Odhiambo; Defendant: Daniel Okoth Ogutu alias Daniel Onyango Oduory
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 March 2020
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 42 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant; Plaintiff's case against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed with costs.
Judges
SM Kibunja, A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Land Registration, Trespass, Succession, Land Disputes Tribunal, Permanent Injunction
Source Language
english
Land and Property Land Registration Trespass Succession Land Disputes Tribunal Permanent Injunction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ochola Musingo

Plaintiff

Wellingtone Mutula Muholo alias Hannington Fredrick Mutula

Defendant

Vincent Otieno Odhiambo

Defendant

Daniel Okoth Ogutu alias Daniel Onyango Oduory

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawfully registered proprietor of East Ugenya/Kathieno 'B'/793, the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether any of the defendants has any legal right over the suit land.
  3. 3 Whether any of the Defendants has trespassed onto the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff was the lawfully registered proprietor of East Ugenya/Kathieno 'B'/793, having acquired the land through a lawful succession process. There was no evidence that the registration had been set aside or revoked. The 1st Defendant's claim, based on an alleged purchase by his late wife, was unsupported by documentary evidence and lacked the required Land Control Board consent. The Land Disputes Tribunal's award purporting to revoke the Plaintiff's title and order subdivision was ultra vires and null, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over registered land. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were found not to have trespassed on the suit land, as they occupied...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant; Plaintiff's case against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) of the Amended Plaint dated 12th October, 2012.
  • The County Land Registrar and Surveyor to visit the suit land to confirm its ground boundaries; requisite fees to be paid by the Plaintiff.