[2010] KEHC 3674 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had lawfully purchased the suit land at a public auction, paid the full purchase price, and obtained a transfer of title. The defendants, despite being served, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and their continued occupation was without legal basis. The plaintiff's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3674 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Wakiru Muira; Defendant: Kipruto Arap Biriri; Defendant: Richard Ruto; Defendant: Patrick Ruto; Defendant: Nickson Ruto
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 204 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff. Declaration of ownership and eviction order granted. Costs to the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Public Auction, Transfer of Land, Eviction, Ownership Declaration
- 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 Wakiru Muira
Plaintiff
Kipruto Arap Biriri
Defendant
Richard Ruto
Defendant
Patrick Ruto
Defendant
Nickson Ruto
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of Title No. Kamara/Mau Summit Block 3/76 (Boror ‘C’) purchased at public auction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession and eviction of the defendants from the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had lawfully purchased the suit land at a public auction, paid the full purchase price, and obtained a transfer of title. The defendants, despite being served, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and their continued occupation was without legal basis. The plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted, and the court was satisfied that he was entitled to a declaration of ownership and an eviction order. The court granted the plaintiff both the declaration of ownership and the eviction order, with costs.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff. Declaration of ownership and eviction order granted. Costs to the plaintiff.
Orders
- A declaration is hereby issued that the plaintiff is the owner of Title No. Kamara/Mau Summit Block 3/76 (Boror ‘C’).
- The defendants shall be evicted from the suit piece of land forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 204 of 2007
JOHN WAKIRU MUIRA…………………..………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIPRUTO ARAP BIRIRI ……..……………1ST DEFENDANT
RICHARD RUTO……………………………2ND DEFENDANT
PATRICK RUTO……………………………3RD DEFENDANT
NICKSON RUTO……..……………………..4TH DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff avers in his plaint that on 7th March 2007 he bought all that piece of land known as Title No. Kamara/Mau Summit Block 3/76 (Boror ‘C’) (the suit piece of land) in a public auction conducted by M/S Saddabri Agencies (Auctioneers) on the instructions of Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation (ICDC) for Kshs.1,500,000/-. He paid a deposit of Kshs.375,000/- at the fall of the harmer and the balance of Kshs.1,125,000/- by 30th March 2007. Subsequently ICDC transferred the piece of land to him on 24th May 2007. In spite of demand the defendants have refused to give possession of the suit piece of land to him and in-act threatened to do harm to him if he goes to the land.
Though served the defendants have not entered appearance or filed any defence. After obtaining interlocutory judgment the plaintiff fixed this case for formal proof.
In his testimony, after narrating how he bought the suit piece of land and got it transferred to himself, the plaintiff said that when he went to the land on 28th August 2007 in the company of the area Assistant Chief and his APs, the third defendant abused him and threatened to cut him and his entourage with a panga. On 31st August 2007 the first defendant was summoned to the Chief’s office at Mau Summit and asked to vacate the land but he has together with the other defendants refused to do so. The plaintiff therefore prays for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit piece of land and the defendants’ eviction from it.
Having considered the uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiff I am satisfied that he is now the owner of the suit piece of land and I accordingly grant him the declaration sought. Despite demand the defendants have refused to vacate and from what the plaintiff says they are not likely to vacate unless they are evicted. Consequently I grant the plaintiff the eviction order sought and order that the defendant should be evicted from the suit piece land forthwith. The plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit.
DATED and delivered this 18th day of February, 2010.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE.