[2019] KEELC 2589 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2589 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First, the suit land, W.BUKUSU/E.SIBOTI/413, had ceased to exist as a registered parcel following its subdivision and closure of title in 1989. The defendants' parcels were derived from this subdivision, and the plaintiff did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2589 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Wasike Makokha; Defendant: Stephen Lumunyasi; Defendant: Martin Wanjala; Defendant: Francis Wafula; Defendant: John Wekhomba; Defendant: Pius Nalainya (deceased); Defendant: Vincent Makokha; Defendant: John Murunga; Defendant: Pastor Murunga; Defendant: Antony Makari
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 72 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Environment Case / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Title Disputes, Eviction, Fraudulent Transfer, Subdivision of Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Land Title Disputes Eviction Fraudulent Transfer Subdivision of Land

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Wasike Makokha

Plaintiff

Stephen Lumunyasi

Defendant

Martin Wanjala

Defendant

Francis Wafula

Defendant

John Wekhomba

Defendant

Pius Nalainya (deceased)

Defendant

Vincent Makokha

Defendant

John Murunga

Defendant

Pastor Murunga

Defendant

Antony Makari

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction orders against the defendants from land parcel W.BUKUSU/E.SIBOTI/413.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants lawfully acquired their respective parcels derived from the suit land.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First, the suit land, W.BUKUSU/E.SIBOTI/413, had ceased to exist as a registered parcel following its subdivision and closure of title in 1989. The defendants' parcels were derived from this subdivision, and the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of their titles or join the key party, Wamaya Nyola Waraba, who allegedly acquired the suit land fraudulently. Second, the plaintiff's claim was statute barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, as the right of action accrued more than twelve years before the suit was filed. The court concluded that there was no legal basis to grant the...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.