[2018] KEELC 3638 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings and evidence were inconsistent and insufficient to establish his claim to the suit property. The plaintiff presented conflicting sale agreements with different dates and amounts, and failed to explain these discrepancies or provide coherent evidence supporting his case....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3638 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lucas Ogola Owour; Defendant: Beatrice Maneno; Defendant: Andrew Odour Odhiambo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 174 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit struck out
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Dispute, Sale of Land, Title Declaration
- 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
Lucas Ogola Owour
Plaintiff
Beatrice Maneno
Defendant
Andrew Odour Odhiambo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the legal owner of plot Title Kiminini/Kinyoro/Matisi Block 3/528.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order against the 1st defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings and evidence were inconsistent and insufficient to establish his claim to the suit property. The plaintiff presented conflicting sale agreements with different dates and amounts, and failed to explain these discrepancies or provide coherent evidence supporting his case. The court emphasized that even in the absence of a defence, the plaintiff bore the burden of proving his case on a balance of probabilities. Due to the hopelessly drafted plaint and lack of clear, consistent evidence, the court struck out the suit, granting the plaintiff leave to file a proper suit if necessary.
Court Disposition
suit struck out
Orders
- The entire suit is struck out.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 174 OF 2017
LUCAS OGOLA OWOUR.............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BEATRICE MANENO…………...........1ST DEFENDANT
ANDREW ODOUR ODHIAMBO……2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. In the plaint dated 31/10/2017 the plaintiff seeks the following prayers:-
a. A declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and legal owner of plot measuring 50 x 100 feet Title Kiminini/Kinyoro/Matisi Block 3/528.
b. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or any persons claiming title through them from entering, constructing, wasting, alienating, damaging, fencing and/or any other ways/manner interfering with the said suit plot measuring 50 x 100 feet Title Kiminini/Kinyoro/Matisi Block 3/528.
c. An eviction order against the 1st defendant out of plot measuring 50 x 100 feet Title Kiminini/Kinyoro/Matisi Block 3/528.
d. Costs of the suit.
Plaintiff’s Case
2. The plaintiff’s case as contained in his plaint is that he purchased a piece of land measuring 50 feet by 100 feet from the 2nd defendant on 22/10/2013; He states that he was given vacant possession of the plot, but the 1st defendant subsequently trespassed onto the plot and has dispossessed the plaintiff of the same. It is on that basis that the prayers set out above are sought.
3. No defence was filed by the defendants in this matter and the suit proceeded to formal proof on the date it was first set down for hearing, that is 28/2/2018.
4. During the hearing the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint and produced documents, including the agreement of sale dated 22/10/2013 between him and the 2nd defendant. The agreement reflects the sale of the suit land to the plaintiff for Kshs.200,000/=. Another agreement, “P. Exhibit 3”, states that on 2nd December, 2014 the 2nd defendant agreed to sell the same plot to the plaintiff for Kshs.450,000/= out of which a deposit of Kshs.10,000/= was paid.
5. Already, having looking at these two documents, doubts have begun to creep in as to which was the real transaction between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and when it was conducted. The plaintiff alone testified at the hearing and he never explained his documents at all. He just presented the documents to the court as they were.
6. It is necessary first that when a litigant comes before court, the pleadings must be properly drawn to contain all the relevant facts of the case upon which he wishes to rely at the hearing. Besides that, even where the suit is not opposed, the litigant especially a plaintiff in a suit commenced by way of plaint or in a counterclaim, must lead evidence on each and every fact he has laid out in the plaint which forms a crucial part of his case. Nothing should be left to conjecture on the part of the court in any suit where the litigant is capable of establishing the facts. I must state that as ours is an adversarial system, the court is not to be called upon to presume any state of affairs or facts regarding any litigant’s case unless it must. In the present case, I find it not necessary to make any assumptions. I must go along with the contents of the plaint even in the absence of the defence, and find out if evidence of the plaintiff supports the statement that he purchased the land on 22/10/2013. This court has found conflicting dates in the documentation by the plaintiff.
7. In my view the plaintiff’s case is so hopelessly drafted in the plaint that it cannot stand scrutiny. I must not comment any more on this suit. However I must have regard to the fact that the plaintiff appears to have relied on his own lay expertise in drafting on his documents and presentation of evidence. I therefore strike out the entire suit with no orders as to costs, with leave granted to present a proper suit if need be.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 20th day of March, 2018.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
20/3/2018
Coram:
Before - Mwangi Njoroge - Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
Plaintiff in person
N/A for the defendant
COURT
Judgment read in open court in the presence of the plaintiff.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
20/3/2018