[2015] KEELC 283 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, as administrator of the deceased's estate, had established his entitlement to the suit land based on the confirmed grant. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, did not controvert the plaintiff's evidence. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 283 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ebei Korodi Cloprita; Defendant: Margaret Naliaka; Defendant: Bonface Matere; Defendant: Babu Ndungu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 36 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim for declaration of ownership and eviction granted; claim for general damages for trespass rejected.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Letters of Administration, Beneficial Ownership, Trespass, Estate 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
Ebei Korodi Cloprita
Plaintiff
Margaret Naliaka
Defendant
Bonface Matere
Defendant
Babu Ndungu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff, as administrator, is entitled to possession of the suit land on behalf of the estate of the deceased.
- 2 Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit land and should be ordered to vacate.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, as administrator of the deceased's estate, had established his entitlement to the suit land based on the confirmed grant. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, did not controvert the plaintiff's evidence. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to unimpeded use of the land for the benefit of the estate's beneficiaries and that the defendants are trespassers who must vacate. However, the court found no basis for awarding general damages for trespass, as no sufficient grounds were established for such relief. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim for declaration of ownership and eviction granted; claim for general damages for trespass rejected.
Orders
- Plaintiff is declared entitled to unimpeded use of the suit land as administrator for the estate of the deceased.
- Defendants are declared trespassers and ordered to vacate the suit land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 36 OF 2014
EBEI KORODI CLOPRITA......................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARGARET NALIAKA….................................1ST DEFENDANT
BONFACE MATERE….....................................2ND DEFENDANT
BABU NDUNGU…...........................................3RD DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff is one of the administrators of the estate of his late brother Sudo Korodi alias Ngichwae (deceased). The deceased was a beneficial owner of Plot No. 113 at Maridadi Settlement Scheme measuring 5 acres (suit land). The deceased died intestate and letters of administration were given to the plaintiff and one other family member. Upon confirmation of the grant, the property of the deceased vested upon the plaintiff who was to hold it on behalf of the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. The defendants were duly served with summons to enter appearance but they neither entered appearance nor filed defence. The hearing therefore proceeded by way of formal proof.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
The plaintiff testified that upon the demise of the deceased, he took out letters of administration for his estate which comprised the suit land. The grant of letters of administration was confirmed and the suit land transmitted to him. The three defendants were on the suit land without any colour of right. He wrote a demand letter to them asking them to move out but they declined to do so. This prompted him to file this present suit in which he seeks a declaration that the suit land belongs to him as beneficial owner on behalf of the estate of the deceased. He seeks a declaration that the defendants are trespassers who should vacate the land.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
The plaintiff produced a confirmed grant [Exhibit 1] and a demand letter [Exhibit 2]. The certificate of confirmed grant shows that he and one Lodet Korodi are the administrators of the estate of the deceased. The demand letter was addressed to the three defendants. It is clear from the certificate of confirmation of grant that the suit land was give to the plaintiff to hold it for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased.
The plaintiff's evidence is not controverted. I find that the plaintiff has proved his case against the defendants on a balance of probabilities. I declare that the plaintiff is entitled to unimpeded use of the suit land. The defendants are trespassers on the same and they should vacate the suit land. I however do not find any grounds upon which I can give general damages for trespass. This prayer is rejected. The plaintiff shall have costs of the suit to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 29th day of July, 2015.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
29/7/2015
In the presence of Mr. Ingosi for the Plaintiff.
Court Assistant – Winnie.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
29/7/2015