[2023] KEELC 20638 (KLR)
The court found that both the main suit and the counter-claim had abated due to the death of the Defendant and the absence of any substitution within the statutory period. As a result, there was no live suit or counter-claim upon which the court could pronounce judgment. The court therefore marked both the main suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 20638 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Everlyne Jeptabut Lagat; Defendant: Dina Jepngetich Rotich
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 220 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Suit and counter-claim abated; file closed with no order as to costs.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Eviction, Title Registration, Mesne Profits
- 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
Everlyne Jeptabut Lagat
Plaintiff
Dina Jepngetich Rotich
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Defendant is a trespasser on the suit property.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order of eviction and permanent injunction against the Defendant.
- 3 Whether the Defendant's counter-claim for ownership and cancellation of title in the Plaintiff's name can be sustained after her death without substitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the main suit and the counter-claim had abated due to the death of the Defendant and the absence of any substitution within the statutory period. As a result, there was no live suit or counter-claim upon which the court could pronounce judgment. The court therefore marked both the main suit and the counter-claim as abated, with no order as to costs, and closed the file.
Court Disposition
Suit and counter-claim abated; file closed with no order as to costs.
Orders
- Both the main suit and the counter-claim are marked as abated.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Lagat v Rotich (Environment & Land Case 220 of 2014) [2023] KEELC 20638 (KLR) (12 October 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 20638 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Environment & Land Case 220 of 2014
EO Obaga, J
October 12, 2023
Between
Everlyne Jeptabut Lagat
Plaintiff
and
Dina Jepngetich Rotich
Defendant
Judgment
1. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant in which she claimed the following reliefs: -a.A declaration that the Defendant is a trespasser and is illegally residing on the Plaintiff’s parcel of Land Uasin Gishu/Kuinet “B” Scheme/36. b.An order of eviction should be issued ejecting the Defendant her agents or servants from parcel Uasin Gishu/Kuinet “B” Scheme/36c.An order of permanent injunction should be issued to bar the Defendant, her agents or servants from using the parcel of land Uasin Gishu/Kuinet “B” Scheme/36. d.General damages/mesne profit for trespass.e.Cost of this suit.f.Interests on (d) and (e).g.Further relief as this Honourable court may deem fit and just to grant.
2. The Defendant filed a defence and raised a counter-claim in which she sought the following reliefs:-a.A declaration that the suit property belongs to the Defendant.b.Cancellation of title registered in the Plaintiff’s name and for registration of title in the Defendant’s name.
3. The Plaintiff is the wife of the late Barabara Kipchumba Lagat who died on 5/6/2013 (Deceased). The deceased was the initial registered owner of LR. No. Uasin Gishu/Kuinet “B” Scheme/36 measuring 2. 3 hectares (suit property). The Plaintiff later processed title in her name which title was issued in 18/12/2013.
4. The Plaintiff testified that the deceased got the suit property from the Settlement Fund Trustee (SFT). He fully repaid the loan owed to SFT and he obtained title on 5/3/2012. It is the Plaintiff’s evidence that the Deceased had permitted the Defendant to graze her animals on the suit property. The Defendant later put up a house without permission of the Deceased.
5. The Deceased later on asked the Defendant to vacate the suit property but she refused. The matter was taken before the area chief for arbitration. The Deceased offered the Defendant one acre but she refused. It is on this basis that the Plaintiff now wants to have the Defendant evicted from the suit property.
6. The only issue for determination is whether there is any suit on which judgement can be pronounced in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not testify as she had already died and no substitution was carried out.
7. The Defendant passed on on 17/8/2022. There was no substitution done. This being the case, her counter-claim and the suit against her abated on 16/8/2023. It therefore follows that no judgment can be pronounced on an abated suit. Both the main suit and the counter-claim are hereby marked as abated with no order as to costs. The file is accordingly closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. E. O. OBAGAJUDGEIn the virtual presence of;Mr. Ayieko for Plaintiff.Court Assistant –LabanE. O. OBAGAJUDGE12TH OCTOBER, 2023