[2014] KEHC 4120 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the suit land by way of transmission following the distribution of her late father's estate. The defendant's occupation of the land was based on a sale by the plaintiff's stepmother, who had no authority to sell land from the plaintiff's share. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4120 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lucy Nekesa Namonyo; Defendant: Felix Wekesa Wepukhulu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 90 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's case proved on a balance of probabilities. Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Ownership by Transmission, Eviction, Letters of Administration, Title Deed Dispute
- 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
Lucy Nekesa Namonyo
Plaintiff
Felix Wekesa Wepukhulu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit land by way of transmission.
- 2 Whether the defendant has any legal right to remain on the suit land.
- 3 Whether the sale of land by the plaintiff's stepmother to the defendant was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the suit land by way of transmission following the distribution of her late father's estate. The defendant's occupation of the land was based on a sale by the plaintiff's stepmother, who had no authority to sell land from the plaintiff's share. The plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted as the defendant failed to appear or defend the suit. The court held that the defendant had no legal right to remain on the land and ordered his eviction, confirming the plaintiff's title and entitlement to possession.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's case proved on a balance of probabilities. Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- The defendant shall be evicted from land parcel Ndivisi/Muchi/8218.
- The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 90 OF 2013
LUCY NEKESA NAMONYO …........................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FELIX WEKESA WEPUKHULU ….................. DEFENDANT
J U D G E M E N T
1. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the late Jackson Namonyo Nabusoba (deceased) who was the registered owner of Plot No. Ndivisi/Muchi/6562. The deceased died on 16/10/2006. The deceased's two widows took out letters of administration is respect of the estate of the deceased. After confirmation of the grant the estate of the deceased was distributed amongst the beneficiaries one of whom is the plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff got a plot measuring 0. 046 of an hactare. A title deed was issued in her name on 18/2/2013. It would appear that before the distribution of the estate of the deceased, one of the administratrix of the deceased's estate had sold some parcels of land to other people among them the defendant. When the distribution was done, it happened that the plaintiff's land fell on where the defendant had bought land from one of the administratrix who is her step mother.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
3. The plaintiff testified that upon obtaining a title deed in her name, she wrote a demand letter (exhibit 5) to the defendant asking him to move out of her land. The defendant never responded to the demand letter issued on 8/3/2013. This prompted the plaintiff to file suit against him seeking eviction order from her plot known as Ndivisi/Muchi/8218.
4. The plaintiff produced title deed in respect of the suit land (exhibit 3). She also produced a green card showing the history of the land (exhibit 4). The plaintiff also produced grant of letters of administration as well as confirmed grant (exhibit 1 and 2 respectively).
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
5. The defendant who was duly served with summons to enter appearance neither neither entered appearance nor filed defence. The hearing proceeded by way of formal proof. I have gone through the documents produced by the plaintiff as well as her evidence in court. There is no doubt that she was registered as owner of the suit land by way of transmission. Her step mother who sold the land to the defendant was given her own share of her husband's land. She was therefore expected to sell land from her portion of the inheritance. The plaintiff's evidence is uncontroverted.
D E C I S I O N
I find that the plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probabilities. The defendant has no business remaining on her land. The defendant should be evicted from the said land. The plaintiff is also granted costs of the suit.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 30th day of June, 2014.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
COURT Judgement delivered in open court at 9. 33 a.m. in the absence of Plaintiff's advocate who was aware of today's date. Court Clerk – Kassachoon.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
30/6/2014