[2004] KEHC 227 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute over plot No.18A Keumbu Market involved substantive issues of fact and law, including whether the respondent had lawfully purchased the property from the applicant's brother and whether the applicant's registration as owner was fraudulent, given he was not the administrator of his...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 227 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Isaac Ayako Ongani; Defendant: Thomas Guto Nyamora
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 86 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Ownership Disputes, Fraudulent Registration, Mesne Profits
- 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
Isaac Ayako Ongani
Plaintiff
Thomas Guto Nyamora
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to summary judgment for recovery of plot No.18A Keumbu Market and mesne profits.
- 2 Whether the respondent has a triable defence regarding ownership and occupation of the plot.
- 3 Whether the registration of the plot in the applicant's name was fraudulent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute over plot No.18A Keumbu Market involved substantive issues of fact and law, including whether the respondent had lawfully purchased the property from the applicant's brother and whether the applicant's registration as owner was fraudulent, given he was not the administrator of his father's estate. The existence of a prior suit (KISII HCCC.NO.156 of 1989) and the affidavit by Francis Ayacko confirming the sale to the respondent further demonstrated that the defence raised triable issues. As such, the matter could not be resolved summarily, and both parties should be allowed to present evidence at trial. The application for summary judgment was therefore...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for summary judgment is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- The defendant is at liberty to defend the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA OF KISII
CIVIL SUIT 86 OF 2004
ISAAC AYAKO ONGANI ……………………...................…………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THOMAS GUTO NYAMORA ………………………...............………… DEFENDANT
RULING
This application is brought under Order 35 rules 1 & 8 CPR and seeks for summing judgment to be entered against the respondent/defendant for recovery of land parcel known as plot No.18A Keumbu Market together with mesne profits. Applicant also prays for costs.
It was submitted that the applicant/plaintiff is the registered owner of the plot in question. The plot initially belonged to his deceased father one SAMSON ONGAKI. After the death of the father he and his other brothers shared his property among themselves. Applicant was given plot No.18A Keumbu Market as his share. He caused it to be registered in his name.
It was further said that the Respondent was a tenant of the applicant’s father in the plot paying shs.2000/= a month. However after the applicant’s father’s death he refused to pay rent and started to build on the plot. He claimed to have bought the property from a brother of the applicant one FRANCIS AYAKO ONGAKI. The said Francis Ayako was sued together with the Respondent by the applicant and his other brothers but they withdrew the issue.
Applicant said he had been paying rent and he has a card for the County Council showing that he is the owner of the said plot. He said the defendant has no defence.
The defence which was filed on 22/6/04 was after an inter locutory judgment had been applied for.
Application was opposed. It was submitted there are issues to be resolved. The Respondent says he bought the property from one Francis Ayacko a brother of the applicant. The said Francis Ayacko has sworn an affidavit confirming this.
The applicant had also filed KISII HCCC.NO.156 of 1989 over the same property against the Respondent and others. That suit was never determined.
Also raised was the issue of how the applicant got registered as the owner of the plot. It was transferred to him after the death of his father. He is not the administrator of his father’s Estate and the registration was therefore through fraud.
Respondent submitted that he had been in occupation of the said plot since 1976 and he has developed it.
I have carefully considered the application. The defendant filed his defence on 22nd June 2004. By then the applicant had on 18th June 2004 applied for inter locutory judgment but it had not been entered. The court can’t ignore the defence. In fact it has not been attacked as having been filed out of time. The applicant is only stating that it raises no triable issues.
The dispute has a long history. As submitted the applicant and his brothers had sued the Respondent and their other brother over the said plot in KISII HCCC.NO.156 of 1989. In that suit the applicant and his other two brothers were complaining that the brother Francis Ayacko who was the 1st defendant had sold plot No.18A Keumbu Market to the present Respondent who was the 4th defendant in that suit. Their complaints were that he did so without the knowledge of the other brothers.
It is therefore clear that as early as 1989 – some 15 years ago; the issue of Respondent having bought the plot was in the knowledge of all the parties. By then the plot was still registered in the name of applicant’s father. It was only in 1992 that registration changed to that of the applicant. This registration has been attacked as being done fraudulently.
It is therefore clear that there are issues to be resolved one being whether indeed the Respondent had bought the plot and the other issue of registration of the plot into applicant’s name. These are not issues which can be misled away or determined in a summarily manner. There is need for both parties to call evidence for the court to reach a proper decision. One notes that Francis Ayacko, the applicant’s brother has sworn an affidavit confirming that he sold the plot to the Respondent.
All in all I find application has no merit. The defendant is at liberty to defend the suit brought against him as he has raised serious issues.
The application is therefore dismissed with costs.
Dated this 26th November 2004.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
Mr. Mogire for Mr. Ombachi for applicant.
N/A for Respondent
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE