[2012] KEHC 3595 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was the lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of a valid sale agreement and subsequent registration of title. The defendant's re-entry and continued occupation of the property after transferring title to the plaintiff...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3595 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fred Kazungu Justin Dind; Defendant: Charo Katana Kithi alias Katana Charo Kithi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 33 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof, Ex Parte
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Trespass, Permanent Injunction, Vacant Possession, Sale of Land, Registration of Title
- 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
Fred Kazungu Justin Dind
Plaintiff
Charo Katana Kithi alias Katana Charo Kithi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof, Ex Parte
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing and occupying plot No. L. R. 436 Ngerenyi.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession and eviction of the defendant from the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that he was the lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of a valid sale agreement and subsequent registration of title. The defendant's re-entry and continued occupation of the property after transferring title to the plaintiff was unlawful. The plaintiff, as a bona fide purchaser for value, was entitled to vacant possession and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing or occupying the property. The absence of any defence or evidence from the defendant further supported the plaintiff's claim, and judgment was entered in his favour as prayed.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, family members and/or any other person deriving interest under him from trespassing and living on plot No. L. R. 436 Ngerenyi belonging to the plaintiff and eviction thereof.
- Plaintiff awarded costs and interest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CIVIL SUIT 33 OF 2011
FRED KAZUNGU JUSTIN DIND..................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHARO KATANA KITHI alias KATANA CHARO KITHI........................................................DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
1. Through the plaint filed on 15th April 2011, the plaintiff is seeking the following substantive prayers against the defendant:-
(i)“Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents, family members and/or any other person deriving interest under him from trespassing and living on plot No. L. R. 436 situate at Ngerenyi belonging to the Plaintiff and eviction thereof.”(sic)
2. Although the defendant was served with Summons to Enter Appearance, he did not enter appearance or file a defence and an exparte judgment was entered against him on 8th August, 2011. Thereafter, the suit proceeded to formal proof on 21st March, 2012. Again a Hearing Notice was served on the defendant but he did not attend. The hearing proceeded exparte with the plaintiff adducing evidence to the effect that in the year 1992, he entered into a sale agreement with the defendant in respect of the suit property described as L. R. NO. 436 NGERENYI SETTLEMENT SCHEME.
3. After the necessary consents were obtained, the property was registered in the plaintiff’s name on the 18th March, 2005. The defendant gave vacant possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff installed his workers on the site. However, soon after, the defendant returned and threw out the plaintiff’s workers and forcefully took possession of the suit property and has continued occupy the premises to the exclusion of the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff’s oral and documentary evidence supports his claim and was not controverted in any way. Pw 2, the area local chief corroborated the same. It is evident from the Plaintiff`s evidence that the defendant disposed of his title to the suit property through the sale agreement. His title was extinguished upon the registration of the suit property in the plaintiff’s name. Hence the defendant`s forced re-entry to the suit property is unlawful.
5. As a bonafide purchase for value the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of his suit property. I find that the plaintiff has established his case on a balance of probabilities and will enter judgment for him in terms of prayer (i) of the plaint with costs and interest.
Delivered and signed at Malindi this30thday ofMay, 2012 in the absence of parties.
C. W. MEOLI
JUDGE