[2015] KEELC 276 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that he lawfully purchased the suit land from the defendant's husband, with the defendant's knowledge and agreement. The defendant failed to file a defence or provide any evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case. The court determined...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 276 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Meshack Ochieng Gogo; Defendant: Christine Nekesa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 89 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- plaintiff's claim allowed; eviction order granted
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Ownership Dispute, Sale of Land, Vacant Possession
- 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
Meshack Ochieng Gogo
Plaintiff
Christine Nekesa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the legal and/or beneficial owner of Plot No. 519 at Namanjalala.
- 2 Whether the defendant should be evicted from the suit land.
- 3 Whether the sale of the suit land to the plaintiff was valid and binding.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that he lawfully purchased the suit land from the defendant's husband, with the defendant's knowledge and agreement. The defendant failed to file a defence or provide any evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case. The court determined that the suit land was not the matrimonial home of the defendant and that she had been consulted regarding the sale. The plaintiff's evidence, including the sale agreement and demand letter, was unchallenged. Consequently, the court held that it would be unjust to deny the plaintiff possession of land he had lawfully acquired. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's claim and...
Court Disposition
plaintiff's claim allowed; eviction order granted
Orders
- An order of eviction is issued directing the removal of the defendant from Plot No. 519 at Namanjalala.
- The plaintiff shall have costs of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 89 OF 2014
MESHACK OCHIENG GOGO.................................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHRISTINE NEKESA …........................................................... DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff is the legal and or beneficial owner of Plot No. 519 measuring 37ft x 55ft at Namanjalala in Trans-Nzoia County (suit land). The plaintiff bought the suit land from Charles Wanyonyi Wekoye the husband of the defendant on 17/4/2014. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant seeking eviction orders against the defendant. The defendant who had been duly served with summons to enter appearance and file defence onlyentered appearance but did not file defence despite the court giving her time to do so.
The case was fixed for formal proof and she was duly served. She appeared during the formal proof when the plaintiff testified. The case was adjourned to another date but she did not turn up in court.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
The plaintiff testified that he bought the suit land from Charles Wanyonyi Wekoye on 17/4/2014. He produced a copy of sale agreement [Exhibit 1]. He paid Kshs.150,000/= for the land together with some semi permanent rooms which were on the suit land. This was after Charles Wanyonyi Wekoye showed him a copy of an agreement between him and one Anthony Wasike dated 19/11/2010 [Exhibit 2].
The defendant refused to move out of the suit land to give him possession. The plaintiff called PW2 Charles Wanyonyi Wekoye as his witness. This witness testified that he bought the suit land in the year 2010. The suit land was near his father in-law's land. He constructed some semi permanent structure where he moved in with his wife the defendant in this case. His stay on the suit land became problematic because of constant harassment from his in-laws over payment of dowry. He discussed with his wife who agreed that they sell the suit land and go and settle elsewhere. It is after this agreement that he sold the suit land to the plaintiff. He used the proceeds from the sale to put up a house in Bungoma for the family. When he asked the defendant to move out of the sold property, the defendant refused to move out.
The plaintiff produced a demand letter written by his lawyers asking the defendant to give vacant possession of the suit land. The demand letter is [Exhibit 3]. The plaintiff's evidence is uncontroverted. The suit land was not a matrimonial home of the defendant. She was consulted and agreed to have the property sold only for her to change her mind after her husband had been paid money and put up a house for her.
DECISION
It is unfair to keep the plaintiff out of the suit land which he bought. I find that the plaintiff has proved his case against the defendant on a balance of probabilities. I allow the plaintiff's claim with the result that an order of eviction is hereby issued directing the removal of the defendant from Plot No. 519 at Namanjalala. The plaintiff shall also have costs of this suit.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 1st day of July, 2015.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
1/7/2015
In the presence of M/s. Arunga for Mr. Kaosa for Plaintiff.
Court Clerk – Isabellah.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
1/7/2015