[2016] KEELC 302 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence and witness testimony, that his late father lawfully purchased the suit land in 1988 and took possession thereof. The plaintiff, as administrator of his father's estate, demonstrated continued possession and acts of ownership, including...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 302 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Omar Abdalla alias Awadh Omar Rajad; Defendant: Kazungu Karisa; Defendant: Kahindi Karisa; Defendant: Kitunga Karisa; Defendant: Jackson Karisa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 9 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's suit allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Vacant Possession, Land Sale Agreements
- 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
Omar Abdalla alias Awadh Omar Rajad
Plaintiff
Kazungu Karisa
Defendant
Kahindi Karisa
Defendant
Kitunga Karisa
Defendant
Jackson Karisa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the suit land purchased by his late father.
- 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully encroached on the plaintiff's land and erected structures thereon.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities in the absence of a defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence and witness testimony, that his late father lawfully purchased the suit land in 1988 and took possession thereof. The plaintiff, as administrator of his father's estate, demonstrated continued possession and acts of ownership, including planting trees and responding to the defendants' encroachment. The defendants, having failed to appear or contest the claim, left the plaintiff's evidence unchallenged. The court held that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to vacant possession, demolition of the defendants' structures, and costs of the suit.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's suit allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiff.
Orders
- The defendants to give vacant possession of the suit land.
- The defendants' structures on the suit land to be demolished by either the defendants or the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO.9 OF 2015
OMAR ABDALLA alias AWADH OMAR RAJAD.....................................PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
1. KAZUNGU KARISA
2. KAHINDI KARISA
3. KITUNGA KARISA
4. JACKSON KARISA.........................................................................DEFENDANTS
J U D G M E N T
1. In their Plaint dated 22nd January, 2015, the Plaintiff has averred that in the year 1988, his late father bought an unregistered piece of land measuring five (5) acres from one Lawrence Kazungu Mramba and Jabu Mrambu.
2. It is the Plaintiff's contention that upon purchase of the said parcel of land, the deceased took possession of the suit land; that after the death of his father in the year 1994, they agreed with the Defendants on how the suit property should be demarcated and that subsequently, the Defendants encroached on the suit property and that the Defendants should give vacant possession of the suit property.
3. Although the Defendants were served with Summons to Enter Appearance, they neither entered appearance nor filed a Defence.
4. The matter proceeded for formal proof on 12th July, 2016.
5. The Plaintiff, PW1, informed the court that the suit property belongs to his late father; that his father bought the land from Mr. Kazungu Rajab on 25th June, 1998 and that in the year 2012, the Defendants invaded the suit property.
6. It was the evidence of PW1 that he reported the issue of the invasion of the suit land by the Defendants to the Assistant Chief who referred them to the DO.
7. According to the statement of PW1, he planted 500 casurina trees on the suit land with the knowledge of the Defendants and that they never raised any objection.
8. PW2 informed the court that the Plaintiff's father was his neighbour; that the Plaintiff's father bought the suit property from him on 25th June, 1988 for Kshs.11,750 and that it was not until the year 2011 when the Defendants invaded the suit land.
9. The evidence produced in this court shows that the Plaintiff took out limited letters of administration in respect to his father's estate.
10. The Plaintiff also produced in evidence the agreement dated 25th June, 1988 that his father entered into with the vendor.
11. The evidence before me shows that it is the Plaintiff who is entitled to the suit land.
12. In the absence of evidence by the Defendants to controvert the Plaintiff's assertions and documents, I find and hold that the Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
13. For those reasons, I allow the Plaint dated 22nd January, 2015 in the following terms:-
(a) The Defendants do give vacant possession of the suit land.
(b) The Defendants' structures standing on the suit land be demolished by either the Defendants themselves or the Plaintiff.
(c) The Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
Dated, signed and delivered in Malindi this 14thday of November, 2016.
O. A. Angote
Judge