[2010] KEHC 1225 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 1225 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs were the lawful allottees and owners of the respective plots, having been allocated the plots by Nairobi City Council and having paid for them. The defendant had no legal basis for entering or constructing on the plots, and his actions constituted trespass. The plaintiffs' rights...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 1225 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Godfrey Hinga Gatir0; Plaintiff: Geoffrey Kariuki Muriithi; Plaintiff: Joyce Nyambura Macharia; Defendant: Tobias Opondo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1275 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Allocation of Land, Trespass, Permanent Injunction, Damages for Trespass
Source Language
en
Land and Property Allocation of Land Trespass Permanent Injunction Damages for Trespass

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Hinga Gatir0

Plaintiff

Geoffrey Kariuki Muriithi

Plaintiff

Joyce Nyambura Macharia

Plaintiff

Tobias Opondo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the lawful allottees and owners of the respective plots at Komarock (HFCK) Phase 1 Shopping Centre.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiffs' plots without legal basis.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction and general damages for trespass.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were the lawful allottees and owners of the respective plots, having been allocated the plots by Nairobi City Council and having paid for them. The defendant had no legal basis for entering or constructing on the plots, and his actions constituted trespass. The plaintiffs' rights to possession, occupation, and quiet enjoyment were unlawfully interfered with. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further trespass and awarded general damages to each plaintiff for the infringement of their rights.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendant, his agents, employees, and/or servants from constructing and/or entering and/or erecting a building on the plaintiffs' plots.
  • The defendant shall pay to each plaintiff KShs. 100,000 in general damages.