[2015] KEHC 3163 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff admitted to having received the full purchase price from the defendants and having put them into occupation of their respective plots, which they have since developed. The court held that the defendants are not trespassers and have a right to remain on the land. The plaintiff's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3163 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Isaac Katiba; Defendant: Peter W. Mulati; Defendant: Jacob Lolo; Defendant: Mary N. Mulukulu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 20 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs to the defendants
- Legal Topics
- Land Sale Agreements, Eviction, Specific Performance, Trespass, Transfer of Land
- 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 Katiba
Plaintiff
Peter W. Mulati
Defendant
Jacob Lolo
Defendant
Mary N. Mulukulu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants are trespassers on the plaintiff's land parcel No. Kimilili/Kimilili/2311.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of eviction against the defendants.
- 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to transfer of the respective plots after payment of the purchase price.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff admitted to having received the full purchase price from the defendants and having put them into occupation of their respective plots, which they have since developed. The court held that the defendants are not trespassers and have a right to remain on the land. The plaintiff's refusal to transfer the plots on the basis of alleged disrespect is not a valid legal ground to deny the defendants their rights. The court concluded that the plaintiff must fulfill his contractual obligation to transfer the plots to the defendants, and that the claim for eviction is without merit. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
ENVIRONAMENT AND LAND CASE NO. 20 OF 2013
ISAAC KATIBA ………………………………....……………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PETER W. MULATI…………....………………...……1ST DEFENDANT
JACOB LOLO……………..…………………………2ND DEFENDANT
MARY N. MULUKULU…………....…………………3RD DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is an order of eviction evicting the defendants their agents and the defendants herein. He prays that they be prevented from encroaching and interfering with the plaintiff’s land parcel No. Kimilili/Kimilili/2311 and costs of the suit.
The Plaintiff gave evidence that he sold a portion of 50’ x 100’ to the 1st defendant for an agreed fees of Kshs.100,000. 00. He states that he was paid the entire amount. He states that the 2nd defendant lives on the said plot and has developed the same. He states that he sold the second plot to the second defendant for Kshs.65,000. 00. He states that he was paid Kshs.50,000. 00 and that he had not paid Kshs.15,000. 00.
He states that he sold to the 3rd defendant a portion of 50’ x 100’ for Kshs.120,000. 00 which she paid up in full. He states that the balance of Kshs.15,000. 00 was paid to him at Kimilili Police Station. He however said the police only gave him Kshs.9,000. 00 out of the balance of Kshs.15,000. 00 leaving out the balance of Kshs.6,000. 00
He avers that the defendants went to the police and alleged that he had obtained that money falsely as a result of which he was kept in the police cells for 3 days.
He argues that the defendants should be evicted from his land. He states that the 1st defendant should be evicted from his land. He states that the 1st defendant has made/turned his shop into a bar where they are selling changa’a. He states that he had initially wanted to transfer the land to the defendants. That because of their actions his family members have decided that the defendants must leave.
The defendants in this case denied that they have disrespected the plaintiff. They denied that they have done anything wrong against the plaintiff. They agreed that they had purchased their respective plots from the plaintiff and paid full purchase price.
That their only mistake was to ask that he transfers the respective portions to them since they have paid the full purchase price and had been put into possession and has since developed their respective plots. They asked for the plaintiff’s suit to be dismissed with costs. The plaintiff admits he was paid the entire purchase price by the defendants. He also admits that he sub divided his plots and put the defendants into full occupation in their respective plots. From his own admission the defendants have developed their plots. It cannot be said that the defendants are trespassers and/or entered the plaintiff’s land illegally. They have every right to be there. The plaintiffs must complete his part of the contract and transfer those plots to the defendants. The defendants cannot be denied their rights on the allegation that they do not respect the plaintiff. For the sale to be completed they do not have to respect him. Respect is earned and it is not a right. It cannot be made a precondition for the transfer of the plots to the defendants.
The plaintiff’s claim herein is frivolous. It lacks in merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants.
DATED at BUNGOMA this 10th day of June, 2015
S. MUKUNYA - JUDGE