[2018] KEELC 3584 (KLR)
The Plaintiffs were registered as proprietors of the suit land pursuant to a valid court order in Machakos High Court Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004, which conclusively determined that the Defendant had no lawful interest in the property. The Defendant did not appeal or set aside that decision and is therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3584 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mbwele Muoki; Plaintiff: Dennis Muoki; Defendant: Justus Mutie Kioko
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 60 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' suit allowed; Defendant's counter-claim dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Succession Disputes, Ownership of Land, Registration of Title
- 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
Mbwele Muoki
Plaintiff
Dennis Muoki
Plaintiff
Justus Mutie Kioko
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiffs are the lawful proprietors of parcel Makueni/Unoa/58 as determined by the Succession Cause.
- 2 Whether the Defendant has any lawful interest in the suit property.
- 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to remain on the suit land or to any relief including a refund of the purchase price.
Ratio Decidendi
The Plaintiffs were registered as proprietors of the suit land pursuant to a valid court order in Machakos High Court Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004, which conclusively determined that the Defendant had no lawful interest in the property. The Defendant did not appeal or set aside that decision and is therefore estopped from raising the same issues in this court. The Plaintiffs' title is indefeasible, and the Defendant's continued occupation is unlawful. The Defendant's counter-claim, including any claim for a refund of the purchase price, cannot be sustained against the Plaintiffs, as the Succession Court directed that any such claim should be pursued against those who illegally received...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' suit allowed; Defendant's counter-claim dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The Plaintiffs are declared the lawful proprietors of parcel Makueni/Unoa/58.
- The Defendant is permanently restrained from interfering with the Plaintiffs' possession and occupation of the suit land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 60 OF 2010
MBWELE MUOKI...............................................1ST PLAINTIFF
DENNIS MUOKI..................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JUSTUS MUTIE KIOKO.........................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs’ case:
1. The 1st Plaintiff, PW1, informed the court that in the year 2004, they petitioned for the Grant of Letter of Administration of the deceased Estate vide Machakos High Court Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004 and that they were issued with a Grant on 14th October, 2004 which was confirmed on 30th November, 2009. It was the evidence of PW1 that in Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004, the court ordered that parcel number Makueni/Unoa/58 (the suit land) be registered in their joint names and that the suit property has since been registered in the joint names of the Plaintiffs.
2. It was the evidence of PW1 that the Defendant raised the issue of having bought the suit land in the Succession Cause and that the court found that he did not have a lawful interest in the suit property. According to PW1, despite the Ruling by the court, the Defendant has refused to vacate the suit land.
3. PW1 produced in evidence the Grant, the Certificate of Confirmation, the Title Deed and the Ruling delivered in Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004.
4. It was the evidence of PW1 that although her late husband was buried on the suit land, the Defendant has barred her from living on the suit land.
5. In cross-examination, PW1 stated that the Defendant has been living on the land for many years and that he vacated the suit land when the Defendant threatened her; that she filed a suit in the Land Disputes Tribunal in the year 2000 and that the Tribunal ruled in her favour.
6. The Defendant did not testify in the matter. The Plaintiffs’ advocate filed submissions and submitted that the High Court sitting as a Probate and Administration court made a final determination on the issue of ownership of the suit land; that the court held that the Defendant did not have a legal interest in the suit land and that this suit was filed within a year from the date of the High Court’s Ruling.
7. The evidence before me shows that the Plaintiffs were registered as the proprietors of parcel of land known as Makueni/Unoa/58 on 3rd December, 2009 in trust for themselves and other beneficiaries. According to the entries in the green card, the said registration was done on the basis of the order of the court vide High Court Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004.
8. Before the suit property was transferred to the Plaintiffs by transmission, the same was registered in favour of Muoki Muasya on 2nd August, 1967. The green card does not show that the land was ever registered in favour of the Defendant.
9. I have perused the Ruling in Machakos Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004 which was produced in evidence. The said Ruling was occasioned by the objection of the Defendant to the Plaintiffs’ claim that they are the ones entitled to the suit land. The court considered the Defendant’s oral evidence and held as follows:
“ 3. Kioko admitted that he never bought the land from thedeceased and so the matter is simple...
4. Since Kioko, Dennis Muoki nor Muli Kioko had no lawful interest in the deceased’s Estate any attempt at disposing any part of it, two (2) years after his death (he died on 14th October, 1982), is unlawful as it amounts to intermeddling with it.
5. In any event, Justus Mutie Kioko has no lawful interest in this Estate and he can pursue a refund of his money from those that illegally received it.”
10. Consequently, the court in the Succession matter directed that the suit land should be registered in the joint names of the Plaintiffs. Having not appealed against the said Judgment, the Defendant cannot raise the same issue that was raised in Succession Cause No. 76 of 2004 in this court.
11. Considering that the Plaintiffs were registered as proprietors of the suit land pursuant to a valid court order, they are entitled to the land to the exclusion of the Defendant. In any event, the Defendant did not prosecute his Counter-claim. The orders of a permanent injunction and/or a refund of the purchase price as against the 2nd Plaintiff cannot therefore issue.
12. For those reasons, I find that the Plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probability. I therefore allow the Plaint dated 24th March, 2010 and dismiss the Defendant’s Counter-claim dated 26th April, 2010 with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 4TH DAY OF MAY, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE