[2013] KEELC 33 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had established ownership of the suit property through documentary evidence, including an indenture, deed plan, and receipts for land rates. The Defendant's failure to appear or contest the Plaintiff's evidence meant the Plaintiff's case was unchallenged. The court held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELC 33 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fatuma Said Salim; Defendant: Charo Riirii
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 35 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment After Formal Proof
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim allowed as drawn in the Plaint dated 17th October 2012.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Eviction Orders
- 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
Fatuma Said Salim
Plaintiff
Charo Riirii
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment After Formal Proof
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot number 10719/258.
- 2 Whether the Defendant unlawfully trespassed onto the Plaintiff's property and constructed structures thereon.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive, eviction, and demolition orders against the Defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had established ownership of the suit property through documentary evidence, including an indenture, deed plan, and receipts for land rates. The Defendant's failure to appear or contest the Plaintiff's evidence meant the Plaintiff's case was unchallenged. The court held that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendant unlawfully trespassed onto her property, constructed structures, and refused to vacate despite official notices and demand letters. Consequently, the Plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought, including injunctive, eviction, and demolition orders against the Defendant.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim allowed as drawn in the Plaint dated 17th October 2012.
Orders
- Injunctive orders restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents, employees or any other person from disposing of, developing, constructing, or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the suit property.
- Eviction and demolition orders issued against the Defendant, his servants, family members, agents or any other person acting on his behalf.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
LAND CASE NO. 35 OF 2012
FATUMA SAID SALIM......................................................PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
CHARO RIIRII.................................................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Introduction
On 17th October 2012, the Plaintiff moved this court by way of a Plaint seeking for the following reliefs:
(i)Injunctive orders restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents, employees or any other person from disposing of, developing, constructing, or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the suit property pending hearing and determination of this suit.
(ii) Eviction and demolition orders to be issued against the Defendant, his servants, family members, agents or any other person acting on his behalf.
The Defendant was served with Summons to Enter Appearance and the Plaint but he did not enter appearance. The matter proceeded for formal proof on 24th July 2013.
Plaintiff’s case
The Plaintiff averred in her Plaint that sometimes in the month of July 2008, the Defendant trespassed onto plot number 10719/258 (the suit property) and commenced putting up structures.
The Plaintiff further averred that when she inquired from the Plaintiff why he was on her plot, the Plaintiff chased her away and threatened her with serious consequences in the event she attempted to occupy the suit property; that the Defendant was summoned by the chief to resolve the dispute which summons the Defendant refused to comply with and that later on the Municipal Council of Malindi issued a notice requiring the Defendant to demolish the illegal structures on the suit property which the Defendant ignored.
The Plaintiff finally averred in her Plaint that she has suffered loss and damages due to the unlawful acts of the Defendant.
When the matter came up for formal proof, the Plaintiff, PW1, stated that the Defendant who is her neighbour invaded her plot. When she inquired from the Defendant why he was invading her plot, the Defendant threatened her with violence.
It was PW1 evidence that the Defendant has gone ahead to construct a house on the land and sold part of the plot.
The Plaintiff produced the indenture dated 17th July 2004 as exhibit number 1 and a deed plan number 255142 as exhibit number 2.
It was the Plaintiff's testimony that she bought the land from an organization known as Maisha Mapya.
According to the Plaintiff, she has been paying land rates to the Municipal Council of Malindi. She produced as exhibit number 3a-h the receipts issued by the Council. The Plaintiff also produced in evidence the demand letters which she issued to the Defendant as exhibit number 4.
The Plaintiff further produced in evidence the a copy of letters from the chief and the Municipal Council of Malindi addressed to the Plaintiff as exhibit numbers 5, 6 and 7a-c.
It was the Plaintiff's prayers that the Defendant should be evicted from the suit property.
Analysis
The Plaintiff's evidence was not challenged by the Defendant. The Plaintiff showed by an indenture dated 17th July 2004 that she bought the suit property from Maisha Mapya Self Help Group. The Plaintiff has therefore proved that she is the owner of the suit property.
I have also perused the “property rates and payment requests” from Municipal Council of Malindi. The said requests and receipts shows that the suit property belongs to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has made efforts through the chief and the Municipal Council of Malindi to have the Defendant move out of her property without success.
In view of the Plaintiff's evidence and documents, and considering that the said evidence was not rebutted by the Defendant, I find and hold that the Plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probabilities.
In the circumstances, and for the reasons I have given above, I allow the Plaintiff's claim as drawn in the Plaint dated 17th October 2012.
Dated and Delivered in Malindi this 18th day of October,2013
O. A. Angote
Judge