[2011] KEHC 2175 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit premises and that his evidence of sole purchase and ownership was unchallenged and unrebutted, as the defendants failed to testify or provide any evidence of their alleged contribution. The law under the Registered Land Act confers absolute...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2175 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Erastus Nyaiko Nkororo; Defendant: Wambura Nkororo & 4 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 116 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Registered Land, Ownership Dispute, Counterclaim, Proprietary Rights
- 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
Erastus Nyaiko Nkororo
Plaintiff
Wambura Nkororo & 4 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff, as registered proprietor, is entitled to exclusive possession and eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.
- 2 Whether the defendants contributed to the purchase of the suit premises and are entitled to a share by way of subdivision.
- 3 Whether the defendants' counterclaim for subdivision of the land is merited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit premises and that his evidence of sole purchase and ownership was unchallenged and unrebutted, as the defendants failed to testify or provide any evidence of their alleged contribution. The law under the Registered Land Act confers absolute ownership to the registered proprietor, and in the absence of any challenge to registration or proof of contribution by the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession and eviction of the defendants. The defendants' counterclaim for subdivision was dismissed for want of evidence.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Final judgment entered for the plaintiff as per the plaint dated 30th August, 2006.
- Defendants to vacate the suit premises within sixty (60) days from the date of judgment, failing which they will be forcefully evicted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
No. 2794
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISII
CIVIL CASE NO. 116 OF 2006
ERASTUS NYAIKO NKORORO.................................................................................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
WAMBURA NKORORO & 4 OTHERS.................................................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants who apparently are his brothers and sister respectively praying for:
“a… Eviction of the defendants from land parcel Nyaribari/Bomerani/Z89
b. Costs.
c. Interest.
d. Any other relief…”.
From the undisputed facts of the case, the plaintiff is the registered owner of the aforesaid parcel of land, hereinafter “the suit premises” having purchased it from Zablon Rioba Nyaikongoro. Pursuant to the sale agreement dated 8th February, 2006, the suit premises were, subsequently transferred and registered in the name of the plaintiff. However, the defendants have continued to reside on the suit premises despite the plaintiff’s protestation and demand that they vacate.
The defendants in their defence do not deny occupying the suit premises. They claim however that they are entitled to occupy the same since they contributed towards its purchase. By way of counterclaim they demanded that the plaintiff be compelled to subdivide the suit premises into seven (7) equal portions measuring 3. 7 ha each so that they and the plaintiff each get their respective portions out of the suit premises.
When the suit came up for plenary hearing, only the plaintiff testified. It was his evidence that he entered into a sale agreement on 8th February, 2006 with Zablon Rioba Nyaikongoro over the suit premises at a consideration of Kshs.150,000/=. Subsequently the vendor transferred the suit premises to him. He stays on the suit premises with the defendants who are his brothers and sisters. When he bought the suit premises, the defendants were in occupation. He denied that the defendants contributed towards the acquisition of the suit premises. He maintained that he bought the suit premises solely. He therefore prayed for their eviction.
During the hearing, none of the defendants appeared and testified. Indeed Mr. Soire, their learned counsel for the defendants closed their case without calling any evidence to back up their defence and counterclaim. The plaintiff’s evidence therefore remains unrebutted and or unchallenged. Their defence to the effect that they had shares in the suit premises was not proved by evidence neither did they proof that they contributed money towards the purchase of the suit premises. The counterclaim was also not proved as there was no evidence to support it.
The law is clear in so far as the rights of the plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the suit premises is concerned. See sections 27 and 28 thereof respectively of the Registered LandAct.None of the defendants have challenged the registration of the plaintiff as the proprietor of the suit premises. In the absence of such challenge, the defendants have no business occupying the suit premises even if they are plaintiff’s brothers and sister. In the absence of any challenge, the plaintiff’s claim should be allowed with costs.
Accordingly, I now enter final judgment in terms of the plaint dated 30th August, 2006. The counterclaim is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. The defendants have up to sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment to voluntarily vacate the suit premises failing which they will be forcefully evicted.
Judgment dated, signed and deliveredat Kisii this 4th day of May, 2011.
ASIKE-MAKHANDIA
JUDGE