[2020] KEELC 1932 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1932 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established ownership of the disputed one acre portion of Dagoretti/Ruthimitu/263 through a prior decree. The defendant, having been served but failing to appear or defend, did not contest the plaintiff's evidence. The court accepted the plaintiff's testimony and documentary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1932 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Josephat Thuo Githachuri; Defendant: Joseph Kibui Mwithiga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 123 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; suit allowed as prayed with modifications on damages.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Mandatory Injunction, General Damages, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Tort Law Trespass to Land Mandatory Injunction General Damages Land Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephat Thuo Githachuri

Plaintiff

Joseph Kibui Mwithiga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant trespassed onto the plaintiff's parcel of land described as Parts I and J on LR No Dagoretti/Ruthimitu/263.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory order for demolition of the defendant's structures.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established ownership of the disputed one acre portion of Dagoretti/Ruthimitu/263 through a prior decree. The defendant, having been served but failing to appear or defend, did not contest the plaintiff's evidence. The court accepted the plaintiff's testimony and documentary evidence showing trespass by the defendant, including photographs and official documents. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction to restrain further trespass, a mandatory order for demolition of the defendant's structures, and nominal general damages for trespass. The court declined to award the full amount of general damages sought due to lack...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; suit allowed as prayed with modifications on damages.

Orders

  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from trespassing on the plaintiff’s one acre portion of Dagoretti/Ruthimitu/263 (Parts I and J).
  • A mandatory order requiring the defendant to demolish his structures on the said property within 30 days; in default, the plaintiff may demolish them.