[2019] KEELC 2371 (KLR)
The court held that since the main suit was dismissed for non-attendance and was never reinstated, there was no subsisting suit upon which to base the application for eviction. Furthermore, the defendants/applicants had not filed any counter-claim seeking eviction or possession, rendering their application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 2371 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hillarione Kabuteni; Applicant: Margaret Kabuteni; Respondent: Gerge Kiruki Mwamba; Respondent: Muketha Mungania
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 65 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Eviction Orders After Dismissal of Main Suit
- Outcome
- application struck out for want of competence with costs to the respondents/plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Adverse Possession, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Counter Claims, Res Judicata
- 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
Hillarione Kabuteni
Applicant
Margaret Kabuteni
Applicant
Gerge Kiruki Mwamba
Respondent
Muketha Mungania
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Eviction Orders After Dismissal of Main Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can grant eviction orders after dismissal of the main suit for non-attendance.
- 2 Whether the application for eviction is competent in the absence of a counter-claim or judgment in favour of the applicants.
- 3 Whether unsuccessful adverse possession claimants are automatically ordered to vacate the land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the main suit was dismissed for non-attendance and was never reinstated, there was no subsisting suit upon which to base the application for eviction. Furthermore, the defendants/applicants had not filed any counter-claim seeking eviction or possession, rendering their application incompetent and unsupported by any pleadings or judgment. The court also rejected the argument that unsuccessful adverse possession claimants are always ordered to vacate the land, clarifying that such orders are only made where the suit is heard and determined on its merits, which was not the case here. Consequently, the application for eviction was struck out for want of competence,...
Court Disposition
application struck out for want of competence with costs to the respondents/plaintiffs
Orders
- The application dated 13.12.2018 is struck out for want of competence.
- Costs awarded to the respondents/plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 65 OF 2009 (OS)
HILLARIONE KABUTENI................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
MARGARET KABUTENI..................................2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
GERGE KIRUKI MWAMBA.......................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MUKETHA MUNGANIA............................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the application dated 13. 12. 2018, defendants/applicants are seeking orders of eviction of the plaintiffs/respondents from L.R No. Ntima/Igoki/1720. The provisions of law cited are section 3 and 3 (a) of Civil procedure Act. The grounds in support of the application are that the suit was dismissed on 27. 9.2019 but the respondent continued to remain on the land.
2. The application is opposed vide the replying affidavit of 1st plaintiffs where it is averred that the applicants did not file any counter-claim, that the application is time barred and is res-judicata.
3. I have considered all the arguments raised herein as well as the submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that plaintiffs are the ones who filed the suit vide the Originating Summons on 25. 5.09 seeking entitlement to land parcel no. LR Ntima/Igoki/1720 by way of adverse possession. The case was dismissed on 27. 9.2017 due to non-attendance of both plaintiffs. Efforts made to revive the suit were futile.
4. Defence side avers that having dismissed the suit the court ought to have ordered the plaintiffs to vacate the land “Suo moto”. It was further submitted that where people who claim adverse possession fail in their bid to secure the land, the courts have always ordered them to vacate the suit land within 6 months. On this point the case of Meru H.C.C No. 102/12 Edward Mugambi Kairanya vs Jason Mathu Mwongera was cited by the applicant.
5. The plaintiffs on the other hand have submitted that the application is bad in law as the same is not based on any pleadings or judgment of the court. The plaintiffs have tendered rather lengthy arguments touching on the merits of their claim.
6. The starting point is that THERE IS NO SUIT! This case died and was not reinstated. On what basis would the court then be issuing the orders sought therein?
7. Secondly it is imperative to note that the applicants/defendants had not filed a counter claim to the suit. Thus their notice of motion is hanging on air, sitting on nothing! I am hence in agreement with plaintiff’s pleadings that the application is bad in law as it is not based on any proper claim, pleadings or judgment.
8. I must also point out that the arguments by the applicants that unsuccessful adverse possession claimant are ALWAYS GIVEN 6 MONTHS to vacate the land by the court is hollow and not supported by any jurisprudence. The case cited by the applicants Edward Mugambi Kairanya (supra) is distinguishable from the present case in that in the Edward Kairanya case, the suit was heard to its logical conclusion where a judgment was delivered. This is not the position in the present case.
9. I proceed to strike out the application for want of competence with costs to respondent/plaintiff.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Muchiri for plaintiff
Kimaita holding brief for Kimathi K. for defendants
Both plaintiffs
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE