[2018] KEELC 3919 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3919 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant failed to prove lawful acquisition of the suit property from the deceased. The purported agreement for sale was not substantiated by credible evidence, and the forensic report indicated the deceased's signature was likely forged. The 2nd plaintiff, as the registered owner, was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3919 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Njeri Kiarie; Plaintiff: Githunguri Njiru Farm (1966) Ltd.; Defendant: Tafuta Development Company Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 626 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Elc Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim allowed; defendant's counter-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Land Allocation Disputes, Beneficial Ownership, Trespass, Specific Performance, Forgery of Documents, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Allocation Disputes Beneficial Ownership Trespass Specific Performance Forgery of Documents Injunctive Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Njeri Kiarie

Plaintiff

Githunguri Njiru Farm (1966) Ltd.

Plaintiff

Tafuta Development Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Elc Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant acquired the suit property lawfully.
  2. 2 Whether the subdivision and sale of the suit property by the defendant to third parties were lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the amended plaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to prove lawful acquisition of the suit property from the deceased. The purported agreement for sale was not substantiated by credible evidence, and the forensic report indicated the deceased's signature was likely forged. The 2nd plaintiff, as the registered owner, was not party to any sale or transfer to the defendant or its director, and the required procedures for transfer were not followed. The defendant's subsequent subdivision and sale of the property to third parties were therefore unlawful. The 1st plaintiff, as the beneficial owner, established her right to possession and protection from trespass. The defendant's counter-claim for...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim allowed; defendant's counter-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant, its agents, servants or employees shall vacate and handover to the 1st plaintiff the portion/s of L.R No. 6845/154 in its possession within sixty (60) days.
  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendant by itself and through its agents, servants or employees from trespassing on, subdividing, disposing of, occupying, transacting any business in relation to and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever with L.R No. 6845/154.