[2018] KEELC 424 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he purchased the suit land from the Defendant through a series of sale agreements, paid the full purchase price, and took possession of the land. The Defendant failed to contest the Plaintiff's evidence or participate in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 424 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Wambua Kitheka; Defendant: Norman Wambua Maseki
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 84 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed in terms of prayers a, b, c, and d of the Plaint dated 18th January, 2017.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Sale of Land, Ownership Disputes, Specific Performance, Injunctions
- 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
James Wambua Kitheka
Plaintiff
Norman Wambua Maseki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of Nzambani/Kyanika/2219 by virtue of sale agreements with the Defendant.
- 2 Whether the Defendant unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff's possession of the suit land.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he purchased the suit land from the Defendant through a series of sale agreements, paid the full purchase price, and took possession of the land. The Defendant failed to contest the Plaintiff's evidence or participate in the proceedings. The Plaintiff's evidence was corroborated by witnesses and documentary proof. The court was satisfied that the Plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the suit land. The absence of any defence or rebuttal from the Defendant further strengthened the Plaintiff's case, justifying the grant...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed in terms of prayers a, b, c, and d of the Plaint dated 18th January, 2017.
Orders
- Declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of Nzambani/Kyanika/2219.
- Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession of the suit land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 84 OF 2017
JAMES WAMBUA KITHEKA.......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NORMAN WAMBUA MASEKI..................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. In the Plaint dated 18th January, 2017, the Plaintiff averred that he is the beneficial owner of a parcel of land known as Nzambani/Kyanika/2219; that on 10th December, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement with the Defendant where the Defendant agreed to sell a portion of the suit land measuring 100feet by 100feet and that the Plaintiff bought further portions of the suit land from the Defendant’s son, Muema Wambua, on 18th July, 2000, 14th September, 2000 and 13th November, 2002.
2. It is the Plaintiff’s case that after paying the full purchase price to the Defendant, the Defendant hired a gang of boys who pulled down the fence of wire which he had put up. The Plaintiff is seeking for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit land.
3. Although the Defendant was served with the Summons to Enter Appearance and the Plaint, he neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence. The matter proceeded for hearing on 28th September, 2017 in his absence.
4. The Plaintiff, PW1, narrated to the court how he purchased the suit land from the Defendant on different dates. It was the evidence of PW1 that the land he bought from the Defendant measure 350feet by 350feet and that he thereafter took possession of the land. PW1 produced in evidence the Sale Agreements that he entered into with the Defendant in respect to the portions of the suit land that he purchased.
5. PW2 stated that he was a neighbour of the Plaintiff; that he is the one who did the Sale Agreements that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant and that he witnessed the signing of those Agreements. According to PW2, the Defendant was always accompanied with his grandson during the signing of the Agreements in respect to the suit land.
6. The Plaintiff’s wife, PW3, reiterated the evidence of her husband, PW1. According to PW3, the Plaintiff paid for the portions of land he bought from the Defendant separately between 1998 and the year 2005 and that she was involved in all those transactions.
7. The Defendant did not rebut the Plaintiff’s evidence that he purchased the suit land from him. Indeed, the Plaintiff, after purchasing the said land, fenced it. The Plaintiff having produced the Sale Agreements that he entered into with the Defendant, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
8. For those reasons, I allow the Plaint dated 18th January, 2017 in terms of prayer Nos. a, b, c and d.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE