[2017] KEELC 1798 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit land, having acquired title following a Ministerial decision under the Land Adjudication Act, which was not appealed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff produced the Title Deed as evidence, and the Defendants, despite being served, failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1798 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kalunzu Mavuti; Defendant: Munyoki Mavuti; Defendant: Mutuku Mutinda
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 26 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed as prayed.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership, Title Registration, Adjudication Appeals
- 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
Kalunzu Mavuti
Plaintiff
Munyoki Mavuti
Defendant
Mutuku Mutinda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful registered proprietor of land Title number Kibauni/Mutembuku/412.
- 2 Whether the Defendants unlawfully trespassed on the suit land.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit land, having acquired title following a Ministerial decision under the Land Adjudication Act, which was not appealed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff produced the Title Deed as evidence, and the Defendants, despite being served, failed to contest the claim or provide any defence. The court held that the Plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to the reliefs sought, including a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit land.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed as prayed.
Orders
- A permanent injunction is issued restraining the Defendants from entering, cultivating or dealing in any manner with land Title number Kibauni/Mutembuku/412.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 26 OF 2013
KALUNZU MAVUTI.....................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNYOKI MAVUTI..........................1ST DEFENDANT
MUTUKU MUTINDA.......................2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. In his Plaint dated 28th February, 2006, the Plaintiff averred that he is the registered proprietor of land Title number Kibauni/Mutembuku/412 (the suit land); that in the year 1988, the Defendants trespassed on the suit land and filed a claim with the adjudication department and that their claim was dismissed by the Minister in Appeal Case No. LA/20/96 on 23rd November, 2001.
2. The Plaintiff is seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, cultivating or dealing in any manner with the suit land.
3. Although the Defendants were served with the Summons to Enter Appearance, they neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence. The matter proceeded for formal proof on 5th February, 2015.
4. The Plaintiff, PW1, informed the court that the two Defendants are his step-brothers; that the suit land is registered in his favour and that they entered the land and started cultivating it in the year 1998.
5. It was the evidence of PW1 that the dispute between him and the Defendants was dealt with under the Land Adjudication Act all the way to the Minister and that the dispute was decided in his favour.
6. PW1 stated that the suit land does not belong to the family; that he purchased the land in 1987 and that the Plaint should be allowed.
7. The Plaintiff’s advocate filed brief submissions and reinstated the evidence by PW1. I have considered those submissions.
8. The Plaintiff produced in evidence the Title Deed for the suit land. According to the said Title Deed, the Plaintiff was registered as the proprietor of the land on 16th May, 2003.
9. According to the proceedings before the Minister in Appeal Case No. LA/20/96-Plot No. 412 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Minister directed that the Plaintiff should be registered as the sole proprietor of the suit land.
10. The decision of the Minister is dated 23rd November, 2001. It was on the basis of the said decision that the Plaintiff was registered as the proprietor of the land in the year 2003.
11. In view of the fact that the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was decided by the Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Land Adjudication Act, and considering that the Defendants never appealed against the said decision and a Title Deed was subsequently issued to the Plaintiff, I find and hold that the Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
12. For those reasons, I allow the Plaintiff’s Plaint dated 28th February, 2006 as prayed.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE