[2015] KEHC 3517 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's title to land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664 was obtained pursuant to a valid judgment and decree, which had not been set aside. The defendant/respondent and her assigns had no lawful basis to remain on the land after the subdivision and registration in the applicant's name. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3517 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Paul Kipkurui Towett (suing through his best friend and next of kin, Paul Kipkurui Towett); Defendant: Grace Chelule
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 57 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Eviction After Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed; eviction order granted
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Land Ownership, Title Registration
- 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
Paul Kipkurui Towett (suing through his best friend and next of kin, Paul Kipkurui Towett)
Plaintiff
Grace Chelule
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Eviction After Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant/respondent is entitled to remain on land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664 after judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff/applicant is entitled to an order of eviction against the defendant/respondent and her assigns.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's title to land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664 was obtained pursuant to a valid judgment and decree, which had not been set aside. The defendant/respondent and her assigns had no lawful basis to remain on the land after the subdivision and registration in the applicant's name. The absence of any response or opposition from the respondent further reinforced the applicant's entitlement to the orders sought. The court therefore allowed the application and issued an eviction order against the defendant/respondent and her agents, directing the plaintiff to appoint a court bailiff for execution and ordering police assistance for security during the eviction....
Court Disposition
application allowed; eviction order granted
Orders
- The defendant/respondent and her servants/agents are evicted from land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664.
- The plaintiff is to appoint a court bailiff to execute the order of eviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CIVIL SUIT NO.57 OF 2001 (O.S)
PAUL KIPKURUI TOWETT...........................................PLAINTIFF
(Suing through his best friend and next of kin, Paul Kipkurui Towett)
VERSUS
GRACE CHELULE.......................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
(Application for eviction; judgment entered for the plaintiff for some land; defendant vacating and then re-entering the land; no basis to do so; eviction order issued)
The application before me is that dated 13 April 2012. It seeks orders that the defendant be evicted from the land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664. The application is premised on the grounds inter alia, that :-
(a) By a judgment dated 16th June 2006 which judgment has not been set aside, the honourable court decreed that the applicant was lawfully entitled to half the portion of L.R No. Kericho/Silibwet/88.
(b) Pursuant to the said judgment the suit land was sub-divided into two equal portions and one of the resultant portions, L.R No. Kericho/Silibwet/2664 was registered in the applicant's name in April 2008.
(c) Upon the said sub-division, the respondent herein delivered up possession of the land to the applicant.
(d) In April 2010, the respondent and her three sons re-entered the applicant's land and forcefully took possession and have refused to vacate.
(e) The respondents continued to stay on the land is a denial of the applicant's right to his property.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Paul Kipkurui Towet, the applicant. He has more or less repeated what is stated in the grounds supporting the application.
The suit itself was commenced on 17 July 2001. The plaintiff is Kiplangat Ngeno, suing through Paul Kipkurui Towet. The claim was for 2. 2 hectares out of the land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/88. No defence was filed within the stipulated period and the matter proceeded ex-parte. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff by Musinga J (as he then was), on 16 June 2006. The defendant filed an application to set aside the said judgment, but that application was not successful, meaning that the judgment of 16 June 2006 remained undisturbed. An application dated 21 December 2006 was later made to have the Deputy Registrar execute mutation forms so as to transfer the 2. 2 hectares to the plaintiff. This application was allowed and the land sub-divided as decreed. Paul Kipkirui Towet is now registered as proprietor of the land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664 pursuant to the decree herein.
I am satisfied that the title of the applicant was received pursuant to the judgment and decree herein. There is no reason why the respondent and/or his assigns continue being on the suit land. They have indeed not replied to this application despite being duly served. I see no reason why I should not allow this application. It is hereby allowed. I do issue an order evicting the defendant/respondent alongside her servants/agents from the land parcel Kericho/Silibwet/2664. I direct the plaintiff to appoint a court bailiff to execute the order of eviction and further order the nearest police station to provide security for the exercise. The defendant shall pay the costs of this application and the costs of the eviction exercise.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 28th day of January, 2015
MUNYAO SILA
JUDGE,
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
In the presence of
…................................. for the Applicant
…................................. for the Respondent
Lilian- court assistant