[2016] KEELC 530 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the registered owner, had established his right to the suitland. The evidence showed that the deceased was the registered proprietor of LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461 and that the dispute had been conclusively determined twice by the relevant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 530 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Musa Tapem; Defendant: Samson Ariworeng; Defendant: Cheposirkoi Ariworeng; Defendant: Reuben Ariworeng; Defendant: Musa Ariworeng; Defendant: Chepoghe Ariworeng; Defendant: Charles Ariworeng
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 100 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Permanent Injunction, Land Ownership, Adjudication Committee Decision
- 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
Musa Tapem
Plaintiff
Samson Ariworeng
Defendant
Cheposirkoi Ariworeng
Defendant
Reuben Ariworeng
Defendant
Musa Ariworeng
Defendant
Chepoghe Ariworeng
Defendant
Charles Ariworeng
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff, as administrator of the deceased's estate, is entitled to orders of eviction and permanent injunction against the defendants from LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461.
- 2 Whether the defendants have any legal right to remain on the suitland.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the registered owner, had established his right to the suitland. The evidence showed that the deceased was the registered proprietor of LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461 and that the dispute had been conclusively determined twice by the relevant land adjudication committee in favour of the deceased. The defendants, being beneficiaries of a third party whose claim had been dismissed, had no legal right to remain on the land. Their failure to file a defence or contest the plaintiff's evidence further supported the plaintiff's case. The court concluded that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- An order of eviction against the defendants or their agents from LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461.
- A permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their agents from interfering in any manner with LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 100 of 2015
MUSA TAPEM...................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAMSON ARIWORENG.......................................1ST DEFENDANT
CHEPOSIRKOI ARIWORENG.............................2ND DEFENDANT
REUBEN ARIWORENG.......................................3RD DEFENDANT
MUSA ARIWORENG............................................4TH DEFENDANT
CHEPOGHE ARIWORENG...................................5TH DEFENDANT
CHARLES ARIWORENG......................................6TH DEFENDANT
J U D G E M E N T
INTRODUCTION
1. The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of his late father Danger Tabim (deceased) who was the registered owner of LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461 (suitland). The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendants seeking orders of eviction and permanent injunction.
2. The defendants were duly served with summons to enter appearance and file defence. They all entered appearance through the firm of Katina & Co. Advocates but they did not file defence. The case was set down for formal proof. A hearing notice was duly served upon the firm of Katina & Co. Advocates who did not attend court for hearing. Hearing therefore proceeded in their absence.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
3. The plaintiff testified that he is the administrator of the estate of his late father Danger Tabim. Prior to the demise of the deceased, he had a dispute with Ariworeng Ruatanyang who is now deceased. The defendants are beneficiaries of the late Ariworeng Ruatanyang. The dispute between the deceased and the late Ariworeng Ruatanyang was arbitrated twice by the Land Committee of Chepareria Adjudication Section. On both occasions, the committee ruled that the suitland belonged to the deceased.
4. The deceased went ahead and processed title to the suitland. The defendants have refused to move out of the suitland prompting the plaintiff to file this suit.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
5. The plaintiff produced a copy of certificate of official search [Exhibit 2]. According to this search, the deceased was registered as owner of the suitland on 1/7/1998. The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of the deceased as per the grant produced as Exhibit 1.
6. The dispute over the suitland has been resolved twice in each occasion in favour of the deceased. On 3/8/1982, the Land Committee of Chepareria Adjudication Section found in favour of the deceased. The proceedings and the committee verdict were produced as Exhibit 3(a). Again on 25/9/1992 an objection was filed by the deceased. The same was heard and determined in favour of the deceased. The proceedings were produced as Exhibit 3(b).
7. A look at the proceedings clearly show that Ariworeng Ruatanyang had his own land at Sook. He came to Chepareria to claim that he had been given land during the process of demarcation. His claim was heard and dismissed. It is therefore clear that his family have no right to remain on the suitland.
D E C I S I O N
8. It is clear that the defendants have no business remaining on the suitland. They had no defence to the plaintiff’s claim. That is why they entered appearance but did not file a defence. I find that the plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. I grant the following reliefs:-
a. An order of eviction against the defendants or their agents from LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461.
b. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants and or their agents from interfering in any manner with LR. No. West Pokot/Chepareria/461.
c. Costs and interest to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 26thday of September, 2016.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr. Bororio for Plaintiff.
Court Assistant - Isabellah.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
26/9/2016