[2008] KEHC 2047 (KLR)
The court found, based on uncontroverted evidence and documentary proof of registration, that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit land, L.R. No. 533/426. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, had no legal right or claim to occupy or use any portion of the land. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2047 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Karanja Kiberenge; Plaintiff: Gadson Ngugi Kiberenge; Defendant: Jeniffer Njoki; Defendant: Beatrice Wambui Nginga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 8 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the plaint; permanent injunction granted; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
- Judges
- DK Maraga
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, Injunctive Relief, Trespass, Registration of Title
- 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 Karanja Kiberenge
Plaintiff
Gadson Ngugi Kiberenge
Plaintiff
Jeniffer Njoki
Defendant
Beatrice Wambui Nginga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of L.R. No. 533/426 and entitled to its exclusive use and enjoyment.
- 2 Whether the defendants have any legal right to occupy or use any portion of the suit land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found, based on uncontroverted evidence and documentary proof of registration, that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit land, L.R. No. 533/426. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, had no legal right or claim to occupy or use any portion of the land. The court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought, specifically a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their use and enjoyment of the property. The claim for general damages was abandoned by the plaintiffs. Judgment was therefore entered in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of the prayers for injunction and costs.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the plaint; permanent injunction granted; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Orders
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from interfering with, remaining on, or in any way interfering in the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of L.R. No. 533/426.
- The defendants shall pay the costs of this suit to the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL CASE 8 OF 2008
DAVID KARANJA KIBERENGE……..…….…1ST PLAINTIFF
GADSON NGUGI KIBERENGE………....…….2ND PLAINTIFF
VERUS
JENIFFER NJOKI………………….………..1ST DEFENDANT
BEATRICE WAMBUI NGINGA…..………...2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The six plaintiffs state in their plaint that they are since 15th October 2007 the registered proprietors of ALL THAT piece of land situate at Molo containing by measurement 5. 922 hectares or thereabouts and known as L.R. No. 533/426 (the suit piece of land). Prior to that it was registered in the name of Eluid Kiberenge Njoroge from 9th January 1975. They further claim that for sometime now the defendants have without any colour of light been unlawfully using for cultivation about 2 acres each of that piece of land. Prior to the registration of the suit piece of land in their names the defendants had taken the fourth and fifth defendants to a non existent body calling itself Molo Land Disputes Tribunal and that that body had made a decision on 20th November 2007 and filed it in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Molo in Land Dispute Case No. 83 of 2007. Pursuant to that decision the defendants have started interfering with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the suit piece of land. They therefore pray for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants by themselves, their respective servants or agents from interfering, remaining or in any way interfering in the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the suit piece of land, general damages and costs of this suit.
Upon being served with summons to enter appearance in this case the defendants simply ignored it and never entered appearance or filed a defence. After obtaining interlocutory judgment the plaintiffs set the suit down for formal proof.
At the hearing David Karanja Kiberenge testified on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other plaintiffs who are his relatives. Save for the 6th plaintiff, who is his brother’s wife, the others are his brothers. He testified that the suit piece of land originally belonged to their late father, Eliud Kiberenge Njoroge. After his demise it devolved to them and they are now registered as tenants in common in equal undivided shares. He said that the defendants have no right whatsoever to occupy the suit piece of land or any portion thereof and prayed for judgment in terms of prayers (a) and (c) and abandoned the claim on general damages.
On the uncontroverted evidence of the 4th plaintiff and a copy of the Grant registered as No. I.R. 27562/1, Exhibit 1, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit piece of land. On that evidence I am further satisfied that the defendants have no claim or right whatsoever to occupy the suit piece of land or any portion thereof. In the circumstances I enter judgment for the plaintiffs in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the plaint.
DATED and delivered at Nakuru this 2nd of July 2008.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE