[2009] KEHC 1081 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property by producing the certificate of title and supporting documents. The defendant, having been duly served, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and thus the plaintiff's evidence was unchallenged. The court held that the defendant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1081 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Janendra Raichand Shah; Defendant: Nassor Mohammed Nahdy
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 233 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Injunctive Relief, Vacant Possession, Title to 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
Janendra Raichand Shah
Plaintiff
Nassor Mohammed Nahdy
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered owner entitled to possession of the suit property.
- 2 Whether the defendant unlawfully entered and constructed structures on the plaintiff's land, amounting to trespass.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory and prohibitory injunctive relief and demolition orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property by producing the certificate of title and supporting documents. The defendant, having been duly served, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and thus the plaintiff's evidence was unchallenged. The court held that the defendant's entry, construction of illegal structures, and refusal to vacate constituted trespass. The plaintiff was entitled to mandatory and prohibitory injunctions, demolition of illegal structures, and vacant possession. The court emphasized the importance of upholding property rights and the rule of law, granting the reliefs sought in prayers (i) to (iv) of the plaint.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- A mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to forthwith pull down and remove from the suit property the constructions and remove all their property, workmen, servants or agents from the plaintiff’s property.
- An injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their servants or agents from preventing the plaintiff from accessing the land and from trespassing onto the plaintiff’s property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
JANENDRA RAICHAND SHAH ………………………..………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NASSOR MOHAMMED NAHDY …………………………………DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendant on 10th July 2009 seeking the following orders:-
(i)A mandatory injunction to order the Defendant to forthwith pull down and remove from the suit property the constructions and remove all their property of whatever nature as well as workmen, servants or agents from the plaintiff’s said property.
(ii)An injunction to restrain the Defendant by themselves their servants or agents or otherwise from preventing the plaintiff from accessing on its land and Defendants should desist from trespassing onto the plaintiff’s said property.
(iii)An injunction to restrain the Defendant by themselves their servant or agents or otherwise howsoever from remaining on or continuing in occupancy of the said land.
(iv)Demolition of all illegal structures and buildings erected on the plaintiffs’ premises.
(v)Costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
(vi)Such other or further relief that this Honourable court may deem fit to grant.
The plaintiff contends that he is the registered owner of all
that piece of land known as Subdivision Number 890 (Org.284/99) Section III Mainland North under Certificate Number CR.39208 and is entitled to possession thereof.
That the Defendants have wrongly entered into the said land. He claims that the Defendants proceeded to construct various illegal buildings and structures on the plaintiff’s said land. He discovered this in May 2009 when he visited the said premises.
That the Defendants to have prevented him from peaceful enjoyment of this property and they have refused to vacate land and have degraded the premises in waste. The plaintiff asserts that the aforesaid amounts to trespass.
The defendant was duly served with summons and plaint on 18th July 2009 but did not enter appearance or file defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 1st September 2009.
The plaintiff testified on oath. He produced the certificate of title to the property in his name. He also produced a Memorandum of Sale for the purchase of its property on 5th June 2002 and also the transfer of the same date.
I am satisfied upon hearing the testimony and considering the pleadings that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit property and he is entitled to vacant possession and to enjoy his property. The Defendants has not challenged the plaintiff’s claim and he has no claim or colour of any right to the suit premises. The plaintiff is entitled under the constitution of this property. The Defendant has forcefully entered the land and refuses to vacate. For the Rule of Law to prevail such conduct must be stopped and/or prevented.
I have to hesitate in granting the orders sought herein.
I do here enter judgment for the plaintiff in terms of prayers (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the plaint. For avoidance of doubt the title reference of the law shall be inserted and included in the said prayers i.e. all that piece of land known as Subdivision Number 840 (org.No. 284/99) Section III Mainland North under Certificate Number CR.39208.
The Defendant shall pay the costs of the suit.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered and signed at Mombasa this 30th day of October 2009.
M. K. IBRAHIM
J U D G E