[2014] KEHC 6844 (KLR)
The court held that the appellant, having purchased the plot in 1987 when the respondent's house was already constructed and in situ, could not claim encroachment or continuing trespass more than thirteen years later. The court emphasized that the appellant should have ascertained the boundaries and ensured proper...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6844 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Lewis Kiungu Mwabonu; Respondent: Peter Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 178 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration, Boundary 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
Lewis Kiungu Mwabonu
Appellant
Peter Kamau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's occupation of part of the appellant's plot constituted a continuing trespass.
- 2 Whether the appellant's claim was time-barred by limitation despite no plea of limitation being raised.
- 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to orders for demolition, vacant possession, and damages for trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant, having purchased the plot in 1987 when the respondent's house was already constructed and in situ, could not claim encroachment or continuing trespass more than thirteen years later. The court emphasized that the appellant should have ascertained the boundaries and ensured proper land description at the time of purchase, as required by the Registration of Titles Act. The absence of a plea of limitation did not preclude the court from considering the lateness of the claim, given the facts. The court found no reason to fault the trial magistrate's decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2003
LEWIS KIUNGU MWABONU.........................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
PETER KAMAU.........................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This appeal lies from the Judgment of the lower Court in Chief Magistrates Civil Case Number 5199 of 1999.
The grounds are that the learned trial magistrate erred in holding that the appellants claim, “had come too late in the day” in complete disregard of the basic proposition that the acts of he Respondent constituted a continuing trespass.
That the learned trial magistrate reached a verdict on lateness of the appellants claim in absence of any plea of limitation. The plaintiff had sought for orders
(a) That the Defendant do at his own cost demolish the offending part of his house currently standing on the plaintiffs plot and deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff.
(b) The Defendant be ordered to pay general damages and/or property for illegal Trespass/occupation till vacant possession of his offended part of the plaintiffs plot is realized.
It is common ground that the appellant purchased plot number 1413 Sec. VI mainland North on the 22nd day of September, 1987.
It is his evidence that he started staying on the said plot from the year 1977 but on lease. At that point in time the Defendant had already constructed his house.
Sometimes in the year 2000 the plaintiff sought services of a surveyor to determine the boundaries of his plot LR NO. 1413/VI/MN Changamwe. He was able to relocate all the beacons but one which fell inside a property owned by one Peter Kamau the Defendant in this case. Its upon that discovery that he decided to bring up this suit.
I do concur with the contention by Counsel for the Respondent that as the plaintiffs plot was registered under the registration of tittles Act Cap 281 the purchaser should have ensured that the proprietor (Vendor) complied with the provisions of section 31 of the Act which required that proper description of the land be given.
It was at the stage of purchasing the land in question that he should have sought the services of a surveyor so as to ascertain the land on the ground. The Appellant concedes that the time he started staying in the plot in question in 1977 he found when the Defendant had already constructed his house. When he was purchasing the plot in the year 1987 the Respondents house was still in situ. He cannot be heard to say that there was encroachment to his plot thirteen (13) years after purchasing the plot.
I find no good reason to fault the finding of the learned trial magistrate.
This appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed with costs.
Judgment delivered dated and signed this 24th day of February, 2014 in open Court.
…............
M. MUYA
JUDGE
24TH FEBRUARY, 2014
In the presence of:-
Learned Counsel for the Appellant absent
learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Gathuku
Court clerk Musundi