[2008] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit land, as evidenced by the Title Deed, Green Card, and Search Certificate. The defendant entered the land in 1995 without any colour of right and has refused to vacate despite demands. The defendant did not contest the claim, and the evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kangogo Chepeitany; Defendant: Laban Chelelgo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 195 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Formal Proof After Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim allowed. Eviction order granted.
- Judges
- DK Maraga
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Trespass to Land, Ownership 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
Kangogo Chepeitany
Plaintiff
Laban Chelelgo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Formal Proof After Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit land.
- 2 Whether the defendant entered and occupied the plaintiff's land without lawful authority.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit land, as evidenced by the Title Deed, Green Card, and Search Certificate. The defendant entered the land in 1995 without any colour of right and has refused to vacate despite demands. The defendant did not contest the claim, and the evidence presented by the plaintiff was unchallenged. The law entitles a registered proprietor to exclusive possession and to seek eviction of trespassers. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff's plea for eviction and awarded costs.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim allowed. Eviction order granted.
Orders
- The defendant shall vacate Title Number Baringo/Kapropita/427 immediately, failing which he shall be evicted.
- The plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Case 195 of 2001
KANGOGO CHEPEITANY…………...…………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LABAN CHELELGO……………………….….DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff claims in the plaint that he is the registered owner of the piece of land known as Title Number Baringo/Kapropita/427 (the suit piece of land) measuring 3. 0 hectares or thereabouts. In the year 1995, the defendant without any colour of right entered that piece of land and fenced off 2 acres and constructed a semi permanent house on it. In spite of demand the defendant has refused to vacate the piece of land. The Plaintiff therefore claims for an order to evict the defendant therefrom. He also prays for costs.
Though served, the defendant did not enter appearance or file any defence. After obtaining interlocutory judgment, the Plaintiff set the suit down for formal proof.
When the matter came before me on the 18th June 2008, the Plaintiff's daughter, Winny Eunice Chetalam, testified on behalf of the Plaintiff. She said that her father has a hearing problem and has given her the Power of Attorney, Exh.1, to conduct this case on his behalf.
She said that her father is, since 31st October 1984, the registered proprietor of the suit piece of land. She produced copies of the Title Deed, Green Card and a Search Certificate to prove that. She further testified that in 1995, the defendant, who is her father’s neighbour moved on to her father’s land without her father’s permission. Her father complained to the defendant’s father when he was alive but the defendant has refused to move out of her father’s land. She therefore prays for an eviction order against the defendant.
Having perused the plaint and considered this evidence I find that the defendant, without any colour of right, entered the plaintiff’s land in 1995 and has since refused to vacate. In the circumstances I grant the Plaintiff’s plea and order that the defendant do vacate the suit piece of land immediately failing which he should be evicted. The plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit.
DATED and delivered at Nakuru this 26th day of June, 2008.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE