[2009] KEHC 3293 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the suit land, having been allocated the property by the relevant government department, paid the requisite premium, and obtained a title deed. The defendant, having failed to respond to the suit, did not challenge the plaintiffs' evidence. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3293 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Eustace Muchunu Muriuki; Plaintiff: Joyce Wangui Muchunu; Defendant: Moses Kimani Ndungu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 207 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
- Legal Topics
- Land Allocation, Trespass, Eviction, Injunction, Title Registration
- 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
Eustace Muchunu Muriuki
Plaintiff
Joyce Wangui Muchunu
Plaintiff
Moses Kimani Ndungu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the lawful proprietors of Title No. Nyandarwa/Kirima/497.
- 2 Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs' land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an eviction order and perpetual injunction against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the suit land, having been allocated the property by the relevant government department, paid the requisite premium, and obtained a title deed. The defendant, having failed to respond to the suit, did not challenge the plaintiffs' evidence. The court accepted the plaintiffs' uncontroverted testimony and documentary evidence, concluding that the defendant and his family were trespassers. As such, the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as prayed, including eviction of the defendant and a perpetual injunction to restrain further trespass.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
Orders
- The defendant and his family are to be evicted from Title No. Nyandarwa/Kirima/497.
- A perpetual injunction is issued restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, family members or anyone claiming under him from re-entering the suit land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 207 of 2008
EUSTACE MUCHUNU MURIUKI….………...1ST PLAINTIFF
JOYCE WANGUI MUCHUNU……………….2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOSES KIMANI NDUNGU……….…………....DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs claim in their plaint that pursuant to their application in July 2006, to the Department of Land Adjudication and Settlement in the Ministry of Lands for allocation of an agricultural land in Nyandarwa District, they were on 6th December 2006 allocated Title No. Nyandarwa/ Kirima/ 497, (the suit piece of land). Upon payment of the stand premium of Kshs. 158,500/= he was issued with a certificate of outright purchase and subsequently a title deed. In August 2007 the defendant and his family trespassed on the land and erected illegal structures on it. Despite demand the defendant has refused to vacate. He therefore prays for an eviction order and a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant by himself, his servants and or agents, family members or anybody claiming under him, having been evicted, from going back. He also prays for the costs of this suit.
Though served, the defendant never entered appearance or filed a defence and on the plaintiff’s application, interlocutory judgment has been entered against him.
In the formal proof the first plaintiff testified on his own behalf and on behalf of the second defendant that at the time of allocation the piece of land was vacant. The defendant trespassed on the land in 2007 and has ignored demands for him to vacate. He produced as exhibits copies of the letter of outright purchase, the title deed and the demand sent to the defendant.
The defendant having ignored the summons to enter appearance the plaintiffs’ claim stands unchallenged. Having perused the exhibits produced and considered the uncontroverted testimony of the first plaifntiff, I am satisfied that the defendant and his family are trespassers on the suit piece of land. As the registered proprietors, the plaintiffs are entitled to its quiet possession and enjoyment. Consequently I enter judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
DATED and delivered this 8th day of May, 2009.
D.K. MARAGA
JUDGE.