[2016] KEHC 6432 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had provided clear documentary evidence of lawful allocation and subsequent exchange of plot No.21 for plot No.60, including new allotment letters and receipts for payment of rent to the council and county government. The defendant, on the other hand, was only allocated plot No.3...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6432 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Kipchumba; Defendant: Festo Asango
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 103 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim allowed; judgment for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Allocation of Plots, Ownership Disputes, Exchange of Land, Council Allocation, Possession, Demolition of Structures
- 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
Michael Kipchumba
Plaintiff
Festo Asango
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot No.60 at Kapomboi Cypruss Trading Centre.
- 2 Whether the defendant had any lawful claim to plot No.60.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had provided clear documentary evidence of lawful allocation and subsequent exchange of plot No.21 for plot No.60, including new allotment letters and receipts for payment of rent to the council and county government. The defendant, on the other hand, was only allocated plot No.3 and failed to provide any credible evidence or legal basis for his claim to plot No.60. The court concluded that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot No.60 and that the defendant's occupation and demolition of the plaintiff's structures was unlawful. The plaintiff's case was therefore proved on a balance of probabilities, entitling him to the reliefs sought.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim allowed; judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- Declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot No.60 at Kapomboi Cypruss Trading Centre.
- The defendant is to vacate plot No.60 forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 103 OF 2013
MICHAEL KIPCHUMBA..................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FESTO ASANGO..........................................DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. The dispute in this case revolves around three plots which were allocated to three individuals by the county council of Nzoia (council) whose operations have since been taken over by the County Government of Trans-Nzoia. The plaintiff was allocated plot No.21, the defendant plot No. 3 and Ekuman Ekeno plot No.60. All the three plots were at Kapomboi Cypruss Trading Centre. The plot allocated to Ekuman Ekeno was residential whereas the other two were commercial.
2. The plaintiff later exchanged his plot with that of Ekuman Ekeno. The plaintiff took plot No. 60 and Ekuman Ekeno took plot No.21. The defendant later came and claimed that plot No.60 belonged to him.
He moved into plot No.60, demolished structures which the plaintiff had put up and erected his own structures prompting the plaintiff to file this suit against him.
3. During the hearing, neither the defendant nor his lawyer were in court despite the hearing date having been taken by consent. The hearing therefore proceeded ex-parte.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
4. The plaintiff testified that he had been allocated plot No.21 by the council. He paid rent and rates to the council for some months. He later agreed to exchange his plot with one Ekuman Ekeno who had been allocated plot No.60. The two then surrendered their respective allotment letters in return for new ones reflecting the new position. The plaintiff then put up structures on his new plot. The defendant later came alleging that plot No.60 belonged to him. He demolished the plaintiff's structures and put up his own. The plaintiff has been asking him to move out of plot No.60 in vain.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
5. The plaintiff produced a letter dated 24. 9.2007 which temporarily allocated him plot No.21 (exhibit 1). He also produced another letter of 24. 9.2007 which allocated plot No.60 to Ekuman Ekeno. When he exchanged plot No.21 for plot No.60, he was issued with a fresh letter of allocation for plot No.60 on 23. 1.2011 (exhibit 3) Mr. Ekuman Ekeno was also given a fresh letter for plot No.21 on 23. 1.2011 (exhibit 4).
6. The plaintiff produced a bundle of receipts (exhibit 5) showing that he has been paying plot rent to the council and lately to the County Government of Trans-Nzoia who are the successors of the council. The plaintiff also produced a copy of receipt (exhibit 7) from the council showing that before the exchange, Ekuman Ekeno had been paying plot rent for plot No.60 and that after the exchange, he was now paying plot rent for plot No.21 (exhibit 8). An exchange agreement entered into on 7. 10. 2012 was produced as exhibit 9.
7. From the documents produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that plot No.60 now belongs to him. The evidence of the plaintiff was supported by the evidence of Ekuman Ekeno who testified in support of the plaintiff. Ekeno confirmed that he is still occupying plot No.21 which he had exchanged with the plaintiff.
8. Though he defendant did not testify, I have looked at the documents he filed in court. The documents indicate that he was allocated plot No.3 at Kapomboi Cyprus Trading Centre. He has been paying plot rent for plot No.3. I do not understand the basis upon which he is laying claim to plot No.60.
9. There are some correspondence filed by the defendant which seem to suggest that he is owner of plot No.60. These correspondence do not shed any light as to how a person allocated plot No.3 can again turn around and claim that his plot is No.60.
DECISION
10. For the reasons given above, I find that the plaintiff has proved that he is the lawful owner of plot No.60. He has therefore proved his case against the defendant on a balance of probabilities. I allow his claim in terms of prayer (a) (b) and (c) of the plaint.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 9th day of February,2016.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr. Bororio for Mr. Chebii for plaintiff. Court Assistant – Isabellah.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE