[2019] KEELC 2529 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the undisputed registered owner of the suit land, having acquired it through a lawful succession process. The 1st defendant admitted that he was allocated his own parcel and was required to vacate the plaintiff's land. The court held that the 1st defendant's claim that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2529 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Munyua M’Kareria; Defendant: Kirima M’Rukunga; Defendant: Margaret M’Rukunga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 132 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's case allowed. Eviction order granted against 1st defendant. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Succession Land Disputes, Ownership 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
George Munyua M’Kareria
Plaintiff
Kirima M’Rukunga
Defendant
Margaret M’Rukunga
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the rightful owner of land parcel Ntima/Igoki/8581.
- 2 Whether the 1st defendant has any legal basis to remain on the suit land after succession and subdivision.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is legally obligated to facilitate the relocation of the 1st defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the undisputed registered owner of the suit land, having acquired it through a lawful succession process. The 1st defendant admitted that he was allocated his own parcel and was required to vacate the plaintiff's land. The court held that the 1st defendant's claim that the plaintiff was obligated to facilitate his relocation had no legal basis. Consequently, the 1st defendant has no right to remain on the suit land and must vacate within the specified period or face eviction. The plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought, including costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's case allowed. Eviction order granted against 1st defendant. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
Orders
- 1st defendant to vacate the suit land within 60 days, failing which eviction to issue.
- 1st defendant to pay costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 132 OF 2016
GEORGE MUNYUA M’KARERIA......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIRIMA M’RUKUNGA...............................................1ST DEFENDANT
MARGARET M’RUKUNGA......................................2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. Vide a plaint filed in court on 11. 8.2016, plaintiff avers that he is the registered owner of land parcel No. Ntima/Igoki/8581 through Meru H.C succession cause no. 35 of 1991. He avers that after the succession case, the land was subdivided and defendants who fell on the plaintiffs land were to move out, but they have declined to do so, prompting the plaintiff to seek eviction orders through this suit.
2. 1st defendant filed a statement of defence whereby he avers that plaintiff is the one who was to facilitate the process of relocation of defendants.
3. The second defendant did not file any memorandum of appearance or statement of defence, but the case against her was marked as withdrawn as she had apparently moved out of the land (see proceedings of 14. 5.2019).
4. Plaintiff adopted as his evidence his recorded statement filed in court on 11. 8.2016. He has given an account of how the suit land came to be. Through succession cause no. 35/1991 High Court Meru, the land of his father Kareria Mwirebua No. Ntima/Igoki/786 was shared between plaintiff, Nkanata Mwirabua, Rukunga Mwirebua and Mungania Mwirebua each getting ¼ acre. Plaintiff’s share of the land was subsequently registered as Ntima/Igoki/8581. Plaintiff avers that 1st defendant who is his cousin has a timber house on the suit land.
5. The 1st defendant adopted his statement of defence as his evidence. He avers that in a family meeting, it was decided that plaintiff was to help him to shift. He is aware that he was given his own portion of land from the succession case.
6. I find that it is not disputed that there was a succession cause where by the suit land ended up with the plaintiff. The 1st defendant even admits that he was to move to his own parcel. His only issue is that he was to be moved by the plaintiff. That claim has no legal basis and as such, defendant ought to leave the suit land.
7. In the circumstances, I allow the plaintiff’s case in the following terms:
(1) The 1st defendant is hereby given a grace period of 60 days to leave the suit land, failure to which, he is to be evicted from the suit land.
(2) 1st defendant is condemned to pay costs of the suit.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Plaintiff
1st defendant
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE