[2015] KEHC 1855 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit properties and that their rights of access are protected by law. The evidence showed that the defendants, without any lawful justification, erected structures on the road leading to the plaintiffs' properties, thereby blocking access. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 1855 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joel Kiragu Karigi; Plaintiff: Bernard Karimi Gacharia; Plaintiff: Joseph Ngacha Karigi; Defendant: Esther Njiraini; Defendant: Felister Wanjiku; Defendant: Muria-Igiri Nduiga; Defendant: Munguti Njau Karaga; Defendant: John Charibu; Defendant: Judy Kagio; Defendant: Lilian Nyaguthii; Defendant: Mithamo Gateru; Defendant: Ann Wambui; Defendant: Gicimu Kanji
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case Case11 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Judgment After Formal Proof; Interlocutory Judgment Previously Entered Due to Non Appearance
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs; orders granted as prayed for removal of structures and eviction in default; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- BN Olao
- Legal Topics
- Right of Way, Removal of Encroachment, Registered Land Rights
- 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
Joel Kiragu Karigi
Plaintiff
Bernard Karimi Gacharia
Plaintiff
Joseph Ngacha Karigi
Plaintiff
Esther Njiraini
Defendant
Felister Wanjiku
Defendant
Muria-Igiri Nduiga
Defendant
Munguti Njau Karaga
Defendant
John Charibu
Defendant
Judy Kagio
Defendant
Lilian Nyaguthii
Defendant
Mithamo Gateru
Defendant
Ann Wambui
Defendant
Gicimu Kanji
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment After Formal Proof; Interlocutory Judgment Previously Entered Due to Non Appearance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit properties and entitled to access rights.
- 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully erected structures blocking the plaintiffs' right of way.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to orders for removal of the structures and eviction of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit properties and that their rights of access are protected by law. The evidence showed that the defendants, without any lawful justification, erected structures on the road leading to the plaintiffs' properties, thereby blocking access. The defendants failed to appear or contest the suit, and the plaintiffs' evidence was unchallenged. The court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the orders sought, namely removal of the structures and, in default, eviction of the defendants, to protect the plaintiffs' proprietary rights and access to their land.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs; orders granted as prayed for removal of structures and eviction in default; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The defendants shall remove the structures put up on the road leading to the plaintiffs' properties within 60 days of service of the decree.
- In default, the plaintiffs are at liberty to evict the defendants and remove the structures.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERUGOYA
ELC CASE NO. 11 OF 2014
JOEL KIRAGU KARIGI …………..……………1ST PLAINTIFF
BERNARD KARIMI GACHARIA………………2ND PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH NGACHA KARIGI…………….……..3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ESTHER NJIRAINI ……………..……… ……1STDEFENDANT
FELISTER WANJIKU …………………..…..2ND DEFENDANT
MURIA-IGIRI NDUIGA ………….…..….…..3RD DEFENDANT
MUNGUTI NJAU KARAGA…………….…..4TH DEFENDANT
JOHN CHARIBU …………………………….5TH DEFENDANT
JUDY KAGIO ………………………………..6TH DEFENDANT
LILIAN NYAGUTHII……………………..…...7TH DEFENDANT
MITHAMO GATERU …………………….…..8TH DEFENDANT
ANN WAMBUI ……………………………….9TH DEFENDANT
GICIMU KANJI ………………………………10TH DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The three plaintiffs herein namely JOEL KIRAGU KARIGI (1st
plaintiff), BERNARD KARIMI GACHARIA (2nd plaintiff) and JOSEPH NGACHA KARIGI (3rd plaintiff) are the registered proprietors of the parcels of land known as MUTIRA/KANYEI/1143, 1144 and 1145 respectively.
By a plaint filed in this Court on 24th January 2014, the said three plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants herein have without any colour or right built structures on the road leading to their properties hence blocking the plaintiffs right of way hence giving rise to this suit in which the plaintiffs seek orders that:-
The defendants be ordered to remove their structures to pave way for the plaintiffs to use the main road and in default they be forcefully evicted.
Costs of the suit.
Any other relief the Court deems fit to grant.
The record herein shows that all the ten (10) defendants were served with the plaint and summons to enter appearance on 14th February 2014 at Kiamuthambi Village but neither of them entered appearance nor filed any defence. Consequently, on 25th March 2015, interlocutory judgment was entered against them and the matter came up for formal proof on 7th October 2015 when again the plaintiffs served the defendants with a formal hearing notice.
JOSEPH NGACHA KARIGI the 3rd plaintiff testified on behalf of the other plaintiffs who adopted his evidence. That evidence is that the 1st plaintiff is the registered owner of the property known as MUTIRA/KANYEI/1143 while the 2nd plaintiff is the registered owner of the property known as MUTIRA/KANYEI/1144 and the 3rd plaintiff the registered owner of the property known as MUTIRA/KANYEI/1145. Certificates of search in respect of the said properties were produced and marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiffs’ evidence was that a local councilor, in the process of soliciting for votes, allowed the defendants to put up structures on the road leading to their respective properties thus leading to this suit. He produced a map (Plaintiffs, Exhibit 4) showing where the structures have been put up.
The plaintiffs’ evidence was not rebutted as no defence was filed and neither of the defendants appeared in Court for the formal proof even when duly served. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the parcels of land known as MUTIRA/KANYEI/1143, 1144 and 1145 and as such, they are entitled to all the rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto. Such rights and privileges are protected by Section 27 and 28 of the repealed Registered Land Act(under which the titles were issued) and even under Section 25 of the new Land Registration Act. Such rights cannot be enjoined if access to the properties is unlawfully restricted by other persons. In order therefore to allow the plaintiffs their rights to their respective parcels of land and in the absence of any lawful explanation as to why the defendants are obstructing the plaintiff’s access to their properties, it is only proper that this Court grants the plaintiffs the orders sought in their plaint.
Therefore, on the plaintiffs’ un-rebutted evidence before me and which I believe, I am satisfied that they have proved their case against the defendants and I enter judgment for them as follows:-
An order that the defendants do remove the structures put up on the road leading to the plaintiffs properties within 60 days of the decree herein being served upon them.
In default, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to evict the defendants and remove the structures.
No order as to costs.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
27TH OCTOBER, 2015
27/10/2015
Before
B.N. Olao – Judge
Gichia – CC
Plaintiffs – present
Defendants – absent
COURT: Judgment delivered this 27th day of October, 2015 in open Court.
Plaintiffs present
Defendants absent.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
27TH OCTOBER, 2015