[2011] KEHC 3786 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was the registered proprietor of L.R. NO. 3471/2 Mweiga, as evidenced by the certificate of confirmation of grant and the title deed. The respondent admitted to leasing the land and cutting trees without the applicant's consent. The respondent's claim that the grant was rectified...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3786 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Beatrice Waringa Muraya; Respondent: Richard Wachira Macharia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 44 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Proprietary Rights, Trespass to Land, Confirmation of Grant
- 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
Beatrice Waringa Muraya
Applicant
Richard Wachira Macharia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive relief restraining the respondent from interfering with L.R. NO. 3471/2 Mweiga pending determination of the dispute.
- 2 Whether the respondent's actions constitute trespass to land despite the applicant holding title.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was the registered proprietor of L.R. NO. 3471/2 Mweiga, as evidenced by the certificate of confirmation of grant and the title deed. The respondent admitted to leasing the land and cutting trees without the applicant's consent. The respondent's claim that the grant was rectified surreptitiously was not supported by any successful challenge or cancellation of the applicant's title. The court held that, in the absence of a valid challenge to the applicant's title, she was entitled to enjoy her proprietary rights, and the respondent's actions constituted trespass. The applicant established her case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
Orders
- The respondent, Richard Wachira Macharia, and/or his servants, agents, assigns and/or anyone acting for him are restrained from entering land parcel L.R. NO. 3471/2 Mweiga, cutting trees, or using the land in any way until determination of the dispute.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 44 OF 1990
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN MACHARIA RUNG’ARE– (DECEASED)
DORCAS NDUTA MACHARIA..................................................PETITIONER/DECEASED
VERSUS
JAMES MURAYA MACHARIA...........................................1ST OBJECTOR/DECEASED
RICHARD WACHIRA MACHARIA..............................RESPONDENT/2ND OBJECTOR
AND
BEATRICE WARINGA MURAYA.................................APPLICANT/1ST RESPONDENT
MARGARET W. M. RUNG’ARE.........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
GEOFFREY NJUGUNA MACHARIA..................................................3RD RESPONDENT
BONIFACE GATHAEGE MACHARIA.................................................4TH RESPONDENT
BENSON KARIUKI MACHARIA.........................................................5TH RESPONDENT
BEATRICE WANGARI MACHARIA...................................................6TH RESPONDENT
ROSELYNE WAGIKUYU MBOGO....................................................7TH RESPONDENT
JOAN NYOKABI MACHARIA............................................................8TH RESPONDENT
JOSEPHINE NYOKABI MACHARIA.................................................9TH RESPONDENT
JEMMIMAH WAKONYO MACHARIA............................................10TH RESPONDENT
SAMUEL G. MWANGI......................................................................11TH RESPONDENT
GATHEGE RUNG’ARE.....................................................................12TH RESPONDENT
NYOKABI JOSPHINE NJUGUNA...................................................13TH RESPONDENT
JOHN MACHARIA MURAYA..........................................................14TH RESPONDENT
BENCET COMPANY LIMITED.......................................................15TH RESPONDENT
RULING
BEATRICE WARINGA MURAYA, the applicant herein, took out the Summons dated 19th October 2010 pursuant torules 59 (1) and 73 of the Probate and Administration rules in which she sought for the following orders:
(1)That this application herein be certified urgent and be heard exparte in the first instance.
(2)That the Respondent herein Richard Wachira Macharia and/or his servants, agents, assigns and/or anyone acting for him be restrained from entering land parcel L.R. NO. 3471/2 Mweiga and to cut trees and/or use the land in any way until the determination of the dispute on the said parcel of land.
(3)That costs of this application be provided for.
The Applicant swore an affidavit she filed in support of the application. RICHARD WACHIRA MACHARIA, the 2nd Objector/Respondent herein, filed a replying affidavit he filed to oppose the application.
The Applicant avers that she got registered as the proprietor of L.R. NO. 3471/2 MWEIGA on 6th May 2009. It is said that the aforesaid title was transmitted to her vide NYERI H.C.SUCC CAUSE NO. 44 OF 1990. Annexed to her affidavit is a copy of the certificate of confirmation of grant showing that the aforesaid land was amongst those properties transmitted to her. In the same annexure, it is shown that the Respondent was given L.R. NO. 3471/1. The Applicant has also annexed to her affidavit a copy of the title to land in dispute. The Applicant has alleged that the Respondent has leased the land in dispute to people she does not know without her consent. It is further alleged that the Respondent has begun cutting down trees standing on the suit land despite the fact he knows she has already acquired title to the land. The Respondent admitted that he had actually leased the suit land to third parties and that their leases will expire at the end of the year 2010. He claimed he was not aware that the Applicant alone had been given title to L.R. NO. 3471/2. He stated hat he has taken up proceedings to challenge the Applicant’s title. He claimed the land was transmitted to the Applicant on the basis of a rectified grant. It is the Respondent’s contention that the rectification of grant was done surreptitiously.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that title NO. L.R. NO. 3471/2 has been transmitted to the Applicant. That title though disputed by the Respondent has not been challenged nor cancelled. The Applicant having acquired proprietory rights, must be allowed to enjoy those rights. The Respondent does not dispute that he has leased the land to third parties. He has not also denied that he has cut down trees standing on the suit land. The Respondent’s actions amount to trespass to land. I find that the Applicant has established the allegations made on the Summons on a balance of probabilities. I allow the application with costs to the Applicant.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 18th day of February 2011.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the presence of Mr. Wachira holding brief Mukunya for Applicant. Respondent in person present.