[2010] KEHC 1642 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she is the registered proprietor of the suit land based on the title deed, certificate of official search, and her testimony. The defendants, having failed to participate or provide any evidence to the contrary, were deemed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1642 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Wanjiru Maina; Defendant: Sarah Karanda; Defendant: John Arap Maina; Defendant: Mathew Mitei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 112 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, Trespass, Eviction, Perpetual Injunction
- 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
Mary Wanjiru Maina
Plaintiff
Sarah Karanda
Defendant
John Arap Maina
Defendant
Mathew Mitei
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of parcel No. NAKURU/NESSUIT SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1817.
- 2 Whether the defendants are trespassers on the suit land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction and a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she is the registered proprietor of the suit land based on the title deed, certificate of official search, and her testimony. The defendants, having failed to participate or provide any evidence to the contrary, were deemed trespassers. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of ownership, eviction of the defendants and any other unauthorized persons, and a perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the suit land. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant only, as the plaintiff could not identify the 2nd and 3rd defendants by name.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- Declaration that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of parcel No. NAKURU/NESSUIT SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1817.
- Any person on the suit land, including the 1st defendant, without the plaintiff's authority shall vacate forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Case 112 of 2009
MARY WANJIRU MAINA………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SARAH KARANDA………………..…..…….1ST DEFENDANT
JOHN ARAP MAINA……………………....2ND DEFENDANT
MATHEW MITEI……………...…………...3RD DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff, Mary Wanjiru Maina has instituted this suit against Sarah Karanda, John Arap Maina and Mathew Mitei (the defendants) for a declaration that she is the lawful owner of parcel of land No.NAKURU/NESSUIT SETTLEMENT SCHEME/1817 while the defendants are trespassers on that land.She also seeks their eviction and a permanent restraining order against them.
The defendants were duly served but failed to participate in the matter, as a result of which the hearing proceeded exparte by way of formal proof.In her evidence, the plaintiff confirmed that the suit land is hers; that the 1st defendant, Sarah Karanda invaded the suit land in 1998; that in 2007, the 1st defendant purported to sub-divide the suit land into three portions and to sell two portions to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
The plaintiff was, however, not able to identify, by name the two persons to whom the 1st defendant has sold the two portions.
From the title deed, certificate of official search and the plaintiff’s own testimony, I am satisfied on a balance of probability that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit land and consequently, I so declare.I further order that any person on the suit land, including the 1st defendant, without the plaintiff’s authority shall vacate it forthwith.In addition, the 1st defendant and any other person on the suit land without the plaintiff’s authority will be restrained by a perpetual order of injunction in terms of prayer (c) of the plaint.
Costs are awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant as the plaintiff does not know the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 22nd day of July, 2010.
W. OUKO
JUDGE