[2007] KEHC 3522 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff was the lawful registered proprietor of the suit land, having acquired title through the statutory adjudication process, which was not challenged by the defendants. The defendants' continued occupation was deemed unlawful as they failed to assert or protect any rights during the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3522 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Nthiga; Defendant: Robbinson Ireri Timamu; Defendant: Lazaro Mbumbui
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 48 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. Defendants to vacate within 90 days; eviction to follow if not complied. No order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Title Registration, Eviction, Unlawful Occupation
- 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
Peter Nthiga
Plaintiff
Robbinson Ireri Timamu
Defendant
Lazaro Mbumbui
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful registered proprietor of parcel No. Embu/Evurore/Nguthi/1621.
- 2 Whether the defendants have any legal right to remain on the land by virtue of long occupation or otherwise.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders for eviction of the defendants from the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff was the lawful registered proprietor of the suit land, having acquired title through the statutory adjudication process, which was not challenged by the defendants. The defendants' continued occupation was deemed unlawful as they failed to assert or protect any rights during the adjudication process. The court held that mere long-term occupation without legal title or challenge to the adjudication process does not override the rights of a registered proprietor. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to orders for eviction, with a grace period granted for the defendants to vacate and remove their developments.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. Defendants to vacate within 90 days; eviction to follow if not complied. No order as to costs.
Orders
- Defendants to vacate parcel No. Embu/Evurore/Nguthi/1621 within 90 days from the date of judgment.
- If defendants fail to vacate within 90 days, eviction order to be executed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Civil Case 48 of 2001
PETER NTHIGA………………………..……………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ROBBINSON IRERI TIMAMU……………………….1ST DEFENDANT
LAZARO MBUMBUI………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff pleads that he is the sole registered proprietor of parcel No. Embu/Evurore/Nguthi/1621 measuring about 2 hectares. The land was processed through the adjudication and the registration was effected on 11/7/1996. The Defendants have since 1986 unlawfully entered and has remained unlawfully in that land. Defendants filed defence saying they have resided on the land for many years and they have nowhere to go to. First Defendant Robinson Ireri Timamu said in his sworn evidence that he can give plaintiff his land if he was compensated for his developments. He said that when he settled and developed the land he thought it was of his deceased brother. The second Defendant also gave evidence in court. He said he had no other place to go to, that the land was his. He also suggested that developments be assessed. His evidence indicates that he does not know that the land on which he resides is not his. The defendants called witness whose evidence was to the effect that these defendants have occupied the land in dispute for a very long time.
The Plaintiff through his lawyers gave written notice to defendants to quit his land on 2/11/2000. I have considered the evidence and the pleadings placed before the court. The plaintiff acquired the disputed land through the process of land adjudication. This issue has not been challenged by the defendants. Therefore the title deed issued to the plaintiff is in accordance with the law. The Defendants just sat on the plaintiff’s land during all this adjudication process and failed to take any action. The defences and testimonies in court does not show why if they had rights to land they failed to protect the same or to take actions under the adjudication system.
I am of the view and I find that the plaintiff as the registered proprietor of the land is entitled to orders he seeks. The Defendants apart from making general statements have no proof that they are entitled by long occupation to the title against the plaintiff. I therefore enter Judgment for plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. As the defendants claim developments on the land they need time to evacuate them. I therefore order the defendants to vacate the land within the next 90 days from today failing which the eviction order shall be executed. No costs are ordered in this case.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 29th October, 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
29/10/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue- Clerk
Both parties present
Judgment read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE