[2007] KEHC 3520 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established her claim to plot No. 3354, Mariani Adjudication Section, by demonstrating that her late husband lawfully purchased the land and that she was entitled to be registered as proprietor. The objection before the second defendant related to a different parcel (10 acres),...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3520 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joyce Ciankoroi Njuki; Defendant: M'Murianki M'Mugwika; Defendant: Meru South Land Adjudication Officer
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 104 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Ownership Dispute, Registration of Title
- 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
Joyce Ciankoroi Njuki
Plaintiff
M'Murianki M'Mugwika
Defendant
Meru South Land Adjudication Officer
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared the rightful owner of plot No. 3354 Mariani Adjudication Section.
- 2 Whether the first defendant's registration as proprietor should be cancelled and replaced with the plaintiff's name.
- 3 Whether the adjudication process and award by the second defendant was proper and unbiased.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established her claim to plot No. 3354, Mariani Adjudication Section, by demonstrating that her late husband lawfully purchased the land and that she was entitled to be registered as proprietor. The objection before the second defendant related to a different parcel (10 acres), not the 3 acres claimed by the plaintiff, and the objector was not the first defendant. The adjudication officer's decision to award the land to the first defendant was unsupported by evidence or reason, indicating bias. As the defendants failed to defend the suit, the plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted. The court therefore granted the reliefs sought in the plaint,...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- A declaration that plot No. 3354 Mariani Adjudication Section belongs to the plaintiff.
- The name of the first defendant to be cancelled as proprietor of plot No. 3354 and replaced with the plaintiff's name.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Civil Suit 104 of 2006
JOYCE CIANKOROI NJUKI……………………....……………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M’MURIANKI M’MUGWIKA……………………......…….1ST DEFENDANT
MERU SOUTH LAND ADJUDICATION OFFICER.…..2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed a plaint against first Defendant an adult male residing in Mariani village. The Meru South Land Adjudication Officer is the second defendant.
The plaintiff claim a declaration that the plot No. 3354 Mariani Adjudication Section is hers and that the name of first Defendant be cancelled and in its place the plaintiff be registered as proprietor. She also claims costs of this suit.
Plaintiff obtained consent for suit to be filed and the consent is attached to the plaint. Summons to enter appearance was served on second defendant but he did not enter appearance. There is also filed affidavit of service sworn on 20/11/2004. Having failed to enter appearance within the prescribed period the plaintiff obtained interlocutory Judgment and proceeded to hearing.
In her evidence she testified that her husband Njuki Ngaine died in 1989. And that the first Defendant had not lodged a complaint (objection) against her claim to land. She exhibited proceedings of hearing of the objection. It is recorded that the first Defendant claimed 10 acres of the land. The Plaintiff states that the ten acres were not part of her claim. She is only claiming 3 acres. It is also recorded that the plaintiff’s husband won the case against first defendant. The Land Adjudication Officer hearing the objection did not give any reason why he awarded the plaintiff’s land to the first Defendant who was claiming 10 acres of land. It is clear the officer was biased against the plaintiff. PW2 a brother in- law of PW1 testified that the plaintiff’s husband purchased the land in dispute (3 acres). He produced document Exhibit 2 which he said relates to the sale by Sabastian. At that time no one objected. PW2 pointed out that the person who objected was Mugwika Thungutha and not Murianki Mugwika (see exhibit No.5). That was the plaintiff’s case.
Upon considering the evidence I find that the objection filed before the second Defendant was in respect of 10 acres of land. The plaintiff’s land No. 3354 is only 3 acres. The objector did not prove his --ownership. The objector was not the defendant but it was the first defendant who was awarded land without any reason at all.
I find that the plaintiff has proved her case. I enter Judgment against the two defendants. I grant prayers stated in the plaint.
No order for costs as the two defendants did not defend the suit.
Dated this 27th November, 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
27/11/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue – Clerk
Plaintiff
Read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE