[2009] KEHC 3846 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 3846 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities. The evidence established that the parties are co-registered owners of the suit land, with each entitled to a specific share as reflected in the register. The plaintiff demonstrated that he had sought the defendants' cooperation for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 3846 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kiptanui Rono; Defendant: Julius Kiprotich Kisorio; Defendant: Augustine Kiplimo Kisorio; Defendant: Daniel Kipkemboi Tanui
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 77 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Co Ownership, Partition of Land, Title Deeds, Land Registration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Co Ownership Partition of Land Title Deeds Land Registration

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiptanui Rono

Plaintiff

Julius Kiprotich Kisorio

Defendant

Augustine Kiplimo Kisorio

Defendant

Daniel Kipkemboi Tanui

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order for partition and subdivision of the suit land among the registered co-owners.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be compelled to execute the necessary documents for partition and conveyance.
  3. 3 Whether the court can authorize execution of documents by the Deputy Registrar in default of the defendants' compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities. The evidence established that the parties are co-registered owners of the suit land, with each entitled to a specific share as reflected in the register. The plaintiff demonstrated that he had sought the defendants' cooperation for partition, but they refused to participate or execute the necessary documents. The law entitles a co-owner to partition and to a separate title for their share. In the absence of defence or contrary evidence, and with one co-owner consenting, the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought. The court further held that, in default of the defendants executing...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendants shall execute all necessary documents to partition parcel NANDI/KAPLAMAI/82 so each registered owner receives title to their respective share.
  • Each registered owner shall bear the costs of subdivision of their respective share.