[2022] KEELC 2270 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2270 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff was lawfully allocated the suit property by the 2nd Defendant, evidenced by the letter of allotment, payment receipts, and beacon certificate. The Plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted, as the Defendants did not adduce any evidence or challenge the authenticity of the documents....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2270 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Njoroge; Defendant: Peter Waweru Guandaru (Sued as The Legal Representative Of Simon Guandaru Ndegwa (Deceased)); Defendant: Nairobi City County
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 211 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Allocation of Land, Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Damages for Trespass
Source Language
en
Land and Property Allocation of Land Trespass to Land Ownership Disputes Damages for Trespass

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Njoroge

Plaintiff

Peter Waweru Guandaru (Sued as The Legal Representative Of Simon Guandaru Ndegwa (Deceased))

Defendant

Nairobi City County

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot number 226 Kahawa West (Phase II).
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant trespassed on the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for trespass and injunctive relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff was lawfully allocated the suit property by the 2nd Defendant, evidenced by the letter of allotment, payment receipts, and beacon certificate. The Plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted, as the Defendants did not adduce any evidence or challenge the authenticity of the documents. The court held that the Plaintiff had proved ownership on a balance of probabilities. The 1st Defendant's occupation and development of the land without lawful title constituted trespass. In the absence of evidence regarding the extent of use or rental income derived by the 1st Defendant, the court assessed general damages for trespass at Kshs 1,000,000. The court granted a...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed.

Orders

  • A declaration is issued that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot No. 226 Kahawa West (Phase II).
  • A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing, constructing on, developing, selling, alienating, transferring, taking possession, remaining or in any way interfering with the Plaintiff’s use and occupation of plot No. 226 Kahawa West (Phase II).