[2016] KEHC 3986 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had lawfully acquired the suit land through succession proceedings, was issued letters of administration, and obtained a title deed after following all legal procedures, including obtaining Land Control Board consent. The defendant failed to provide any legal justification for his...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 3986 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Concepta Tindi Wafula; Defendant: Morris Watila
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 108 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit allowed with costs to the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Succession Rights, Land Ownership, Eviction, Letters of Administration
- 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
Concepta Tindi Wafula
Plaintiff
Morris Watila
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit land as per the succession proceedings and title documents.
- 2 Whether the defendant has any legal right to occupy or remain on the suit land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of eviction against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had lawfully acquired the suit land through succession proceedings, was issued letters of administration, and obtained a title deed after following all legal procedures, including obtaining Land Control Board consent. The defendant failed to provide any legal justification for his occupation of the land and did not challenge the validity of the plaintiff's title or the succession process. The court concluded that the defendant had no right to remain on the land and that the plaintiff was entitled to exclusive possession and an eviction order.
Court Disposition
suit allowed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant shall move out and vacate the suit land forthwith.
- If the defendant fails to vacate, the court bailiff shall evict the defendant from the suit land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
LAND AND ENVIRONMENT CASE NO. 108 OF 2015
CONCEPTA TINDI WAFULA……………………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MORRIS WATILA …………………………………………….DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
[1] The simple facts of this case are that the plaintiff was one of the wives of Peter Wafula Watila now deceased. On her husband’s death the plaintiff filed Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. 119/92 after she was given the consent to do so by her co wife Mary Nafula Watila who later died. The plaintiff was given letters of administration of her husband’s estate on 28th April 1993 and she was made a sole heir of land parcel number East Bukusu/S.Nalondo/241 and E.Bukusu/S.Kanduyi/2080. She then applied for consent of the Land Control Board to have the suit land transferred to her on 13/9/92 and consent was given on the same day. She transferred the land to her name on 3/5/93 and a title deed was issued to her. She produced all those documents in court.
[2] She says that the defendant who is her husband’s brother later entered the land and built on the land she was given. She said that she went to the area chief and reported the matter and the chief asked the defendant to move out and vacate the suit land. The defendant has failed to do so rendering this suit necessary.
[3] The defendant’s case is that the land in dispute was bought by his father. He says that the plaintiff has never entered the land. He denied any knowledge of the Succession the plaintiff had filed. He requested the court to allow him to stay on the suit land. On cross examination however he admitted that the plaintiff as his brother’s wife and a brother who died when he was only 10 years old. He also admitted that he knew Succession cause was filed and a title given to the plaintiff further that, that previously the land had been given to the plaintiff’s husband Peter Wafula Watila.
[4] That being the plaintiff’s and defendant’s case, is there any reason why the defendant should not move out and vacate out of the plaintiff’s land?
As far as I could see, there is absolutely nothing shown to court as to why the defendant entered the land. No reason was tendered to court why he should not vacate.
[5] Having perused at the documents produced by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the land belongs to her. The defendant should move out and vacate the suit land forthwith failing which the court bailiff shall evict the defendant therefrom.
This suit succeeds as prayed with costs to the plaintiff.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 27th day of July 2016
S.MUKUNYA - JUDGE
Plaintiff present
Defendant present