[2017] KEELC 3629 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3629 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they are the legal owners of the suit parcels of land, having produced documentary evidence such as letters of offer, payment receipts, and title deeds. The defendants failed to provide any evidence of lawful claim or authority...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3629 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Kimutai Kiptum; Plaintiff: Sammy Ruto Silamoi; Plaintiff: Richard Chesire Kore; Defendant: Charles Erekai; Defendant: Losike Lopeyok; Defendant: James Nakoeu; Defendant: James Wafula; Defendant: Epuyo Emaumau; Defendant: Mrs. Kipchumba; Defendant: Josphine Namoni; Defendant: Vincent Ndege; Defendant: Lochio Chakamaoi; Defendant: David Lakamoi; Defendant: James Tukeu; Defendant: David Amochong; Defendant: Tula Sokomo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 119 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Ownership Dispute, Trespass, Permanent Injunction, Quiet Possession
Source Language
en
Land and Property Ownership Dispute Trespass Permanent Injunction Quiet Possession

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Kimutai Kiptum

Plaintiff

Sammy Ruto Silamoi

Plaintiff

Richard Chesire Kore

Plaintiff

Charles Erekai

Defendant

Losike Lopeyok

Defendant

James Nakoeu

Defendant

James Wafula

Defendant

Epuyo Emaumau

Defendant

Mrs. Kipchumba

Defendant

Josphine Namoni

Defendant

Vincent Ndege

Defendant

Lochio Chakamaoi

Defendant

David Lakamoi

Defendant

James Tukeu

Defendant

David Amochong

Defendant

Tula Sokomo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the legal owners of parcels of land L.R NO’s 934, 295, 1541 and 1546 within Milimani settlement scheme, Trans-Nzoia County.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have trespassed or interfered with the plaintiffs' parcels of land without consent.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit properties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they are the legal owners of the suit parcels of land, having produced documentary evidence such as letters of offer, payment receipts, and title deeds. The defendants failed to provide any evidence of lawful claim or authority to occupy or interfere with the suit properties. The court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to protection of their proprietary rights and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives, servants, and agents from claiming, trespassing, occupying, or otherwise interfering with the plaintiffs' parcels of land. Costs were awarded to the...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendants, their representatives, servants, and/or agents from claiming, trespassing, occupying, or in any other way interfering with the plaintiffs’ parcels of land L.R NO’s 934, 295, 1541 and 1546 within Milimani settlement scheme, Trans-Nzoia County.
  • The defendants are to vacate the suit properties and allow the plaintiffs quiet possession.