[2016] KEELC 335 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs, as administrators of the deceased's estate, had established ownership of the suitland and that the defendant's occupation and construction of a commercial building was without proper authority or consultation with the family. The sale of a portion of the land by the third...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 335 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Kipkeu Kirop; Plaintiff: Benjamin Kanda Yano; Plaintiff: Oscar Kibet Magen; Defendant: Mike Kipkemoi Kirop
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 62 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' case proved; eviction order granted.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Succession, Unregistered Land, Family Land Disputes
- 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
John Kipkeu Kirop
Plaintiff
Benjamin Kanda Yano
Plaintiff
Oscar Kibet Magen
Plaintiff
Mike Kipkemoi Kirop
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant unlawfully occupied and constructed on the suitland belonging to the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs, as administrators, are entitled to an eviction order against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs, as administrators of the deceased's estate, had established ownership of the suitland and that the defendant's occupation and construction of a commercial building was without proper authority or consultation with the family. The sale of a portion of the land by the third plaintiff's mother was not valid as it was done without the consent of other family members and before the estate was distributed. The plaintiffs' evidence was uncontested, and the court was satisfied that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities. Consequently, the court ordered the eviction of the defendant and demolition of the building if not voluntarily...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' case proved; eviction order granted.
Orders
- The defendant is directed to vacate the suitland within one month.
- If the defendant fails to vacate, he shall be forcefully evicted and the building demolished.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 62 OF 2015
JOHN KIPKEU KIROP………………...........………………1ST PLAINTIF
BENJAMIN KANDA YANO…………………................…. 2ND PLAINTIFF
OSCAR KIBET MAGEN……………………….............…. 3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MIKE KIPKEMOI KIROP………………………….................DEFENDANT
J U D G E M E N T
INTRODUCTION
1. The three plaintiffs are administrators of the estate of Chelanga Barsiror Koriet (deceased) who was owner of an unregistered land situated at Toroko Centre, Kapkondot sub-location in Elgeyo Marakwet County (suitland). The plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendant seeking an eviction order.
2. The defendant who was duly served neither entered appearance nor filed defence. The hearing proceeded by way of formal proof.
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE
3. The deceased is grandfather to the plaintiffs. The deceased had four sons. The deceased had purchased the suitland on 23/10/1977. The deceased had not shared his land amongst his four sons by the time he died. In the year 2013, the mother to the third plaintiff sold a quarter (1/4) an acre to the defendant.
4. The plaintiffs were against the sale because there was no consultation of the family of the deceased. The plaintiff started erecting a structure on the suitland. The plaintiffs asked the defendant to stop constructing on the deceased’s land but he did not stop. He went on and there is a six roomed commercial building on the suitland.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
5. There is no contention that the deceased was the owner of the suitland. The deceased died on 15/6/1979. His grandsons who are the plaintiffs obtained limited grant of letters of administration on 17/3/2016. The deceased had purchased the suitland on 23/10/1977.
6. There is a photograph showing the completed commercial building. The plaintiffs’ evidence is not controverted. The defendant bought the quarter acre from Elizabeth Komen the mother of the third plaintiff. There was no consultation with other family members.
DECISION
7. I find that the plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probabilities. An order is hereby given directing eviction of the defendant from the suitland. The defendant is given one month to voluntarily demolish the building or he be forcefully evicted and the building demolished. The defendant should pay costs of this suit to the plaintiffs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 2nd day of November, 2016.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
COURT
Judgement signed in court at 14. 43 pm in the absence of plaintiffs who were aware of the time and date of delivery of judgement.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
2/11/2016