[2017] KEELC 466 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115, having lawfully purchased it from Kimani Gathogo. The defendant and his family, despite being aware that they were occupying land not registered in their name, refused to vacate and even lodged a caution against the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 466 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Geofrey Muriuki Manene; Defendant: Njoroge Ndungu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 112 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim allowed; eviction order, permanent injunction, general damages, and costs awarded.
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Trespass, Ownership Dispute, Injunction, Damages for Trespass
- 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
Geofrey Muriuki Manene
Plaintiff
Njoroge Ndungu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order against the defendant from LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115.
- 2 Whether the defendant has any legal right or interest to remain on the suit property.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115, having lawfully purchased it from Kimani Gathogo. The defendant and his family, despite being aware that they were occupying land not registered in their name, refused to vacate and even lodged a caution against the property. The court held that the defendant had no legal basis to remain on the plaintiff's property and that the plaintiff was entitled to an eviction order, a permanent injunction, and general damages for trespass. The court assessed general damages at Kshs. 200,000 and granted the plaintiff's prayers for eviction, injunction, and costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim allowed; eviction order, permanent injunction, general damages, and costs awarded.
Orders
- An eviction order is issued against the defendant from LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115.
- A permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming interests, rights, or interfering with the plaintiff's possession of LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115 is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT MILIMANI
LAND CASE NO. 112 OF 2012
GEOFREY MURIUKI MANENE...................PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
NJOROGE NDUNGU...............................DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
1. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs;-
a. That an eviction order do issue against the defendant herein from LR No.Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115.
b. A permanent injunction restraining the defendant whether by himself, his agents and servants or in any manner howsoever from claiming interests, rights or in any way dealing with or trespassing onto or continuing further trespass onto the plaintiffs land and/or interfering with the plaintiff rights of quiet possession, occupation and enjoyment of LR No .Dagoretti/ Thogoto/1115.
c. General damages against the defendant for trespass.
d. Costs of and incidental to the suit and interest at court rates.
2. The defendant’s counsel were given time to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules but they never complied. The defendant’s Advocate applied for adjournment on 29th June 2017 to enable them make an application to cease acting but the application for adjournment was rejected. The hearing proceeded after the defendant’s advocate stormed out of the Court.
3. The history of the present dispute can be traced to 1984 when the defendant’s cousin Kimani Gathogo sued the defendant’s father over the ownership of LR No.Dagoretti/Thogoto/372. The dispute was heard by elders who ruled that the said property be subdivided into two equal portions. The defendant’s father was not satisfied with the verdict by the elders. He made an application before Kiambu Court challenging the verdict of the elders. This application was dismissed. The defendant’s father filed an appeal to the High Court which appeal was also dismissed. The property was finally subdivided and it resulted into LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1115 (suit property) which was registered in the name of Kimani Gathogo and LR No. Dagoretti/Thogoto/1114 which was registered in the name of the defendant’s father who is now deceased.
4. Kimani Gathogo sold his portion to the Plaintiff herein on 2nd December 2010. The plaintiff is now the registered owner of the suit property. Prior to the plaintiff purchasing the suit property, the previous owner Kimani Gathogo had tried to evict the defendant and his siblings from the suit property in vain. The plaintiff now filed the present suit in which he seeks among other prayers an eviction order.
5. I have perused the documents produced by the plaintiff and there is no doubt that he is the registered owner of the suit property. A look at the affidavits filed in this file show that after the subdivision of the main title, the defendant’s family remained on the portion which was registered in the name of Kimani Gathogo instead of occupying the portion registered in their father’s name. The defendant seems to contend that since they have constructed on the portion registered in the plaintiff’s name, they should be allowed to transfer the portion which is in their father’s name to the plaintiff as it is not developed.
6. It is clear that the plaintiff bought the suit property while the defendant and his family were in occupation of the same. This is clear from the pleadings in Kikuyu Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No.316 of 2009 in which Kimani Gathogo had sued the defendant and his family members. The prayers he was seeking were exhumation orders. He wanted the remains of the defendant’s mother who died in 1969 removed from the suit property. He also wanted the remains of the defendant’s father removed from the suit property.
7. The defendant is aware that he is on someone else’s property but he is refusing to move from there. He has even gone ahead to lodge a caution against the suit property. The defendant has no basis for remaining on the plaintiff’s property. The defendant has been kept out of his property since 2010 when he purchased the same. I find that the plaintiff is entitled to general damages which I assess at Kshs.200,000/-. I also allow the Plaintiff’s claim in terms of prayers (a),(b)and(d).
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobion this 13thday of December 2017.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of;-
Mr Kiingati for Mr Mungla for Plaintiff
Court Assistant: Kevin
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE