[2019] KEELC 2215 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs were paid-up members of Nentanai Group Ranch and held valid title deeds for specific parcels of land. However, their parcels did not exist on the ground, and the defendant failed to allocate the land or provide any defence. The plaintiffs' evidence, including membership payments...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2215 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Cosmas Mwangi; Plaintiff: Mutunkei Ole Muray; Plaintiff: Nkisali Maranji Ole Lobissi; Defendant: Nentanai Group Ranch
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 653 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiffs
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Group Ranch Membership, Title Deeds, Land Allocation, Parcel Identification, Breach of Obligation
- 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
David Cosmas Mwangi
Plaintiff
Mutunkei Ole Muray
Plaintiff
Nkisali Maranji Ole Lobissi
Plaintiff
Nentanai Group Ranch
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to their respective parcels of land as members of Nentanai Group Ranch.
- 2 Whether the defendant breached its obligation to allocate land to the plaintiffs as per their titles.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to costs and other reliefs sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs were paid-up members of Nentanai Group Ranch and held valid title deeds for specific parcels of land. However, their parcels did not exist on the ground, and the defendant failed to allocate the land or provide any defence. The plaintiffs' evidence, including membership payments and title deeds, was unchallenged. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities and were entitled to declarations confirming their rights to the parcels, costs of resurvey, and other reliefs as sought. The defendant's failure to fulfill its obligations constituted a breach, justifying the orders granted.
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiffs
Orders
- Declaration issued that the plaintiffs are entitled to their rightful parcels of land in their exact measurements as specified.
- The defendant to bear the costs of resurvey and any other costs incurred to ensure the plaintiffs recover their legal parcels as per their respective titles and shares as members of Nentanai Group Ranch.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO. 653 OF 2013
DAVID COSMAS MWANGI.............................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
MUTUNKEI OLE MURAY..............................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
NKISALI MARANJI OLE LOBISSI..............................................3RD PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
NENTANAI GROUP RANCH..............................................................DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
1. The plaintiffs have field this suit against the defendant for:-
(a) The honourable court be pleased to order the Registrar of Lands to revoke and cancel all titles granted as a result of the subdivision of parcel number Kajiado/Lorngusua/69, order a re-survey of the entire parcel of land and re-allocation of the parcel of land to the plaintiffs and other members.
(b) Alternatively; a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to their rightful parcels of land in their exact measurements being 1st plaintiff- Parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/1486 area 23. 73 Hectares, 2nd plaintiff – Parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/1447 area 16. 14 hectares and 3rd plaintiff- Parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/1484 area 31. 52 hectares.
(c) The defendant do bear the costs of the resurvey and any other costs that may be incurred to ensure the plaintiffs recover their legal parcels as per their respective titles and share as members of Nentanai Group Ranch.
(d) Costs of the suit and interest at the court rates till payment in full.
(e) General and punitive damages for the loss suffered.
(f) Any other relief which the court shall deem appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Upon being served with summons to enter appearance and copies of plaint the defendant entered appearance but neglected and/or refused to file defence within the prescribed period. The matter then proceeded exparte.
3. PW1 David Cosmas Mwangi told the court that he is the owner of Land Parcel Number Kajiado/Lorngusua/1486 measuring approximately 23. 73 hectares. He told the court, he is a member of Nentanai Group Ranch. He told the court that the committee has failed to show him the land on the ground. He together with his co-plaintiffs have tried to get assistance from the provincial administration with no success. They engaged a surveyor who prepared a report. This is when they discovered the parcel of land does not exist in the ground. He prays that the defendant be compelled to give him his share of the land.
4. PW2 Mutunkei Ole Muray confirmed what PW1 told the court. That he has a title deed but the land does not exist on the ground. His Land Parcel Number is Kajiado/Lorngusua/1447. He said he paid Kshs.20,000 as membership fee. He also prays that the defendant be compelled to give him his share of the land.
5. PW3, Nkisali Maranji Ole Lobissi confirmed what the other plaintiffs told the court. He has a title deed for Land Parcel Number Kajiado/Lorngusua/1485 measuring approximately 31. 52 hectares. He also confirmed that he paid Kshs.28,000 as membership fee but he does not have land on the ground.
6. I have considered the pleadings, the evidence on record and the written submissions of counsel. The issue for determination is whether the plaintiffs have made out a good case against the defendant.
7. The defendant did not file any defence. The plaintiffs’ case is therefore uncontroverted. In support of their case the plaintiffs produced the documents shown in their list of documents dated 31st May 2013 and filed in court on the same day. The said documents were produced as exhibits P1 to P24 respectively.
8. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs were paid up members of Nentanai Group Ranch. They have title deed in their names but their respective parcel of lands do not exist on the grounds. These documents have not been challenged.
9. In conclusion, I find that the plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probability as against the defendant. They deserve the orders sought. The defendant has breached the obligation it owned the plaintiffs. Accordingly judgment is entered for the plaintiffs as against the defendant as follows:-
(a) That declaration be and is hereby issued that the plaintiffs are entitled to their rightful parcels of land in their exact measurements being 1st plaintiff- Parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/1486 area 23. 73 Hectares, 2nd plaintiff – Parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/1447 area 16. 14 hectares and 3rd plaintiff- Parcel Kajiado/Lorngusua/1484 area 31. 52 hectares.
(b) The defendant do bear the costs of the resurvey and any other costs that may be incurred to ensure the plaintiffs recover their legal parcels as per their respective titles and share as members of Nentanai Group Ranch.
(c) Costs of the suit and interest at the court rates till payment in full as the court was not guided on the quantum of dames
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi on this 25TH day of JULY 2019.
……………………….
L. KOMINGOI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms Nduta Kamau for Mr. Omondi for the Plaintiffs
No appearance for the Defendant
Kajuju-Court Assistant