[2021] KEELC 1021 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1021 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit land LR. 13468, as evidenced by the certificate of title and corroborated by witness testimony. The defendants unlawfully invaded and occupied the land without the plaintiff's consent, constructed permanent structures, and sold portions of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1021 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Njiru Ageria Development; Defendant: Joseph Murayi Lubanga; Defendant: Stephen Okoth Ochola; Defendant: James Kamau Githae; Defendant: Dickson Mbogo; Defendant: George Nyaoga; Defendant: Chrisandus Barasa; Defendant: Joseph Wachira; Defendant: John Otieno Ojow; Defendant: Benard Wanyama
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 494 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; eviction and injunction granted; claim for general damages disallowed.
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Land Ownership, Trespass, Eviction Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Ownership Trespass Eviction Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njiru Ageria Development

Plaintiff

Joseph Murayi Lubanga

Defendant

Stephen Okoth Ochola

Defendant

James Kamau Githae

Defendant

Dickson Mbogo

Defendant

George Nyaoga

Defendant

Chrisandus Barasa

Defendant

Joseph Wachira

Defendant

John Otieno Ojow

Defendant

Benard Wanyama

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered owner of LR. 13468 and entitled to possession of the land.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully invaded and occupied the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction orders and a mandatory injunction against the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit land LR. 13468, as evidenced by the certificate of title and corroborated by witness testimony. The defendants unlawfully invaded and occupied the land without the plaintiff's consent, constructed permanent structures, and sold portions of the land. The plaintiff's proprietary rights are protected under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act. Since the defendants failed to file a defence or appear, the plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted. However, the claim for general damages for trespass was disallowed due to lack of sufficient articulation in evidence or submissions. The court granted the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; eviction and injunction granted; claim for general damages disallowed.

Orders

  • Defendants, their servants, agents, and/or any other person claiming under them to be evicted from LR. 13468.
  • A mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, or otherwise from further acts of trespass, alienation, occupation, wastage, or interference with the plaintiff's ownership rights in LR. 13468.