[2008] KEHC 1392 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1392 (KLR)

The court determined that due to the existence of contested facts regarding the ownership and transfer of the suit property, and the lack of clear evidence such as minutes authorizing the sale by the church, the matter could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. The court held that the suit should proceed by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1392 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Darasa Investments Limited; Defendant: Mark Ngaina; Defendant: George Kanyuria Chege; Defendant: The Good News Church of Africa (Registered Trustees); Defendant: The Gospel Furthering Bible Church Trust (Registered Trustees)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 274 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Directions for Hearing Procedure
Outcome
Directions issued for suit to proceed by viva voce evidence after compliance with Order 11A (I) of the Civil Procedure Rules; suit ought to be brought by plaint.
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Eviction, Mesne Profits, Trespass, Procedure for Hearing, Originating Summons
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Title to Land Eviction Mesne Profits Trespass Procedure for Hearing Originating Summons

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darasa Investments Limited

Plaintiff

Mark Ngaina

Defendant

George Kanyuria Chege

Defendant

The Good News Church of Africa (Registered Trustees)

Defendant

The Gospel Furthering Bible Church Trust (Registered Trustees)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Directions for Hearing Procedure

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful registered owner of LR No.36(VII) 586 IR 23941.
  2. 2 Whether the continued occupation by the defendants constitutes unlawful trespass.
  3. 3 Whether the suit should proceed by affidavit evidence or viva voce evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that due to the existence of contested facts regarding the ownership and transfer of the suit property, and the lack of clear evidence such as minutes authorizing the sale by the church, the matter could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. The court held that the suit should proceed by way of viva voce evidence to allow for proper examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the court noted that the suit ought to have been brought by way of plaint rather than originating summons, given the complexity and nature of the dispute.

Court Disposition

Directions issued for suit to proceed by viva voce evidence after compliance with Order 11A (I) of the Civil Procedure Rules; suit ought to be brought by plaint.

Orders

  • The suit shall proceed by way of viva voce evidence.
  • Parties to comply with the provisions of Order 11A (I) of the Civil Procedure Rules.