[2007] KEHC 2487 (KLR)
The court found that since the respondent, Margaret Wangithi Nduthu, had already been allocated 1.9 acres and was registered as proprietor of parcel No. 857 in accordance with the Tribunal's award, there was no justification for her continued occupation of the applicant's property, parcel No. 858. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2487 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Margaret Wangithi Nduthu; Defendant: Nduthu Wanjohi; Defendant: Milkah Muthoni Nduthu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 59 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Eviction Order
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Land Allocation, Family Land Disputes, Execution of Tribunal Award
- 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
Margaret Wangithi Nduthu
Plaintiff
Nduthu Wanjohi
Defendant
Milkah Muthoni Nduthu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Eviction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent should be compelled to vacate and remove her houses from the applicant's land parcel IRA-INI/GATUNDU/858.
- 2 Whether the respondent's continued occupation of the applicant's property is justified after the Tribunal's award and registration of her own parcel.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the respondent, Margaret Wangithi Nduthu, had already been allocated 1.9 acres and was registered as proprietor of parcel No. 857 in accordance with the Tribunal's award, there was no justification for her continued occupation of the applicant's property, parcel No. 858. The court held that the application for her removal was merited and granted the order for eviction, giving her 30 days to vacate the property. The court declined to award costs due to the familial relationship of the parties.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Margaret Wangithi Nduthu and her family are to be removed from property IRA-INI/GATUNDU/858 within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Case 59 of 1997
MARGARET WANGITHI NDUTHU…......…....……..……PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
Versus
NDUTHU WANJOHI…………………..…...…..1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MILKAH MUTHONI NDUTHU……...…….....…2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The parties herein had their matter determined by the Provincial Land Dispute Tribunal Committee of Central Province on the 12th February 2003. The hearing related to the suit property namely IRA-INI/GATUNDU/110-5. 6 Acres. The decision of the Appeals Committee was that the Applicants’ two wives would get each 1. 9 acres of that land whilst he would retain 1. 8 acres thereof. The two wives are MARGARET WANGITHI NDUTHUandMILKAH MUTHONI NDUTHU. That award was read by the Court on 2nd May 2003. The parties were given 30 days to file any objection. To date no objection has been filed. The Applicant has now filed a Chamber Summons dated 2nd November 2004. It brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order XLV Rule 17 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant seeks that Margaret Wangithi Nduthu be ordered or compelled together with her family to vacate the Applicant’s land namely parcel No. IRA-INI/GATUNDU/858. In support of that application the Applicant, that is Nduthu Wanjohi, stated that he is the registered owner of that parcel of land. He attached to the affidavit a copy of the official search. He confirmed that he registered IRA-INI/GATUNDU/857 in the name of Margaret Wangithi Nduthu. That before he made that transfer the Respondent’s house and that of her family was spread all over on the original title. That those houses are still where they were, which happens to be the parcel of land registered in the Applicant’s name. He therefore concluded by saying that he seeks that the Court will order the Respondent to remove her houses on the portion of land. The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit where she stated that her son has a house on the boundary between Plot No. 857 and 858. That in respect of 858 that property is owned by the Respondent and her co-wife. She further deponed that the Applicant had in 1995 made a commitment to remove the Respondent’s house from where it is onto her portion of land namely parcel No. 857 at his own expense. That to date he has failed to do so. Having considered the application and the opposition by the Respondent, it is perhaps essential to explain that the original title which was the subject of the Tribunal thereof, was IRA-INI-GATUNDU/110. Following the hearing of the Tribunal the award of the Court was that the Applicant do transfer 1. 9 acres to both of his wives. He was to retain 1. 08 acres for himself, which the Tribunal stated he would hold in trust for his two wives. It is that portion of 1. 8 acres that the Respondent is said to have built her house together with her family. I find that there is no reason why the Respondent having been allocated 1. 9 acres in accordance with the award of the Tribunal and is indeed registered as the proprietor of parcel No. 857 should continue to occupy the Applicant’s property.
Accordingly I find that the Application before Court is merited and is hereby granted as prayed in prayer No. 1, that is, Margaret Wangithi Nduthu be removed from property IRA-INI/GATUNDU/858 together with her family within 30 days from the date of this ruling. The Court does not grant any costs to that application because it involves family members.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 27th day of July 2007.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE