[2018] KEELC 2650 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2650 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including a title deed and supporting documents from the cooperative society, that she was the registered proprietor of the suit land. The agreement of sale relied upon by the defendants was disowned by the plaintiff, who was not the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2650 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Margaret Wanjiru Waburi; Defendant: Chrispin Muiruri; Defendant: Geoffrey Gitau Ndungu; Defendant: Irene Wangari Ndegwa; Defendant: Kimathi Silas Kiniu; Defendant: Rachael Wamaitha Kuria; Defendant: John Kamau Njuguna; Defendant: Purity Wangari Njuki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Muranga
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 161 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment After Formal Proof; Default Judgment Entered
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; vacant possession granted; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
BC Koech
Legal Topics
Title Registration, Vacant Possession, Fraudulent Transfer, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Title Registration Vacant Possession Fraudulent Transfer Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Wanjiru Waburi

Plaintiff

Chrispin Muiruri

Defendant

Geoffrey Gitau Ndungu

Defendant

Irene Wangari Ndegwa

Defendant

Kimathi Silas Kiniu

Defendant

Rachael Wamaitha Kuria

Defendant

John Kamau Njuguna

Defendant

Purity Wangari Njuki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Judgment After Formal Proof; Default Judgment Entered

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of L. R MITUBIRI/WEMPA/BLOCK2/1206.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants trespassed onto the plaintiff's land based on a fraudulent and illegal sale agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including a title deed and supporting documents from the cooperative society, that she was the registered proprietor of the suit land. The agreement of sale relied upon by the defendants was disowned by the plaintiff, who was not the vendor named therein. There was no evidence to contradict the plaintiff's ownership or to show that her title was acquired through fraud or illegality. The defendants failed to appear or defend the suit, rendering the plaintiff's claim uncontroverted. On the balance of probabilities, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought, including vacant possession...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; vacant possession granted; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendants are ordered to deliver vacant possession of L. R MITUBIRI/WEMPA/BLOCK2/1206 to the plaintiff within 90 days from the date of judgment.
  • The costs of the suit to be met by the defendants jointly and severally.