[2018] KEELC 1675 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1675 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement to the suit land, as evidence showed that parcel 721 no longer existed due to subdivision and sale to a third party prior to the suit, and parcel 722 belonged to another individual not party to the proceedings. The defendant was not in possession...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1675 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Odongo Ondaba Apeli; Plaintiff: Oucho Ondaba Apeli; Defendant: Stephen Owino Apeli
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 91 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Land Ownership, Title Registration, Trespass, Injunctions, Estate Administration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Ownership Title Registration Trespass Injunctions Estate Administration

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Odongo Ondaba Apeli

Plaintiff

Oucho Ondaba Apeli

Plaintiff

Stephen Owino Apeli

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of the late Apel Ondaba Apeli, are entitled to possession and use of land parcels NORTH WANGA/MAYONI/721 and 722.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has trespassed onto the suit land without legal authority.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement to the suit land, as evidence showed that parcel 721 no longer existed due to subdivision and sale to a third party prior to the suit, and parcel 722 belonged to another individual not party to the proceedings. The defendant was not in possession of the suit land and had no dealings with it. The plaintiffs did not establish any legal basis for their claim or entitlement to an injunction. The suit was therefore found to be without merit, unsustainable, and an abuse of the court process. The plaintiffs' case was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.