[2020] KEELC 3947 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3947 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of the registered proprietor, lawfully sold the suit property to the 1st plaintiff, who took possession. The defendants, having failed to enter appearance or file a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3947 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Chivatsi Jonathan Nyoka; Plaintiff: Thomas Kasena William; Plaintiff: Mary William Karisa; Defendant: Charo Kotea; Defendant: Kahindi Charo Kotea; Defendant: Kasena Katana Kotea
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 165 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint, with costs.
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Trespass to Land, Administration of Estates
Source Language
en
Land and Property Vacant Possession Trespass to Land Administration of Estates

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

Parties

Chivatsi Jonathan Nyoka

Plaintiff

Thomas Kasena William

Plaintiff

Mary William Karisa

Plaintiff

Charo Kotea

Defendant

Kahindi Charo Kotea

Defendant

Kasena Katana Kotea

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession of Land Title No. Kilifi/Madunguni ‘A’/657.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have any legal right or claim over the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of the registered proprietor, lawfully sold the suit property to the 1st plaintiff, who took possession. The defendants, having failed to enter appearance or file a defence, did not contest the plaintiffs' evidence. The court was satisfied that the defendants had no legal right or claim over the property, and their actions amounted to trespass. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to vacant possession and a permanent injunction as prayed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint, with costs.

Orders

  • The defendants are to give vacant possession of Land Title No. Kilifi/Madunguni ‘A’/657 to the plaintiffs.
  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendants, their servants, and agents from accessing, cultivating, constructing on, selling, or in any manner dealing with the suit property.