[2021] KEELC 1380 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1380 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Kisumu/Dago/1300 and that there was no valid or lawful interchange of the parcels with Kisumu/Dago/1755, as there was no written agreement or consent from both parties. The purported interchange was not legally effected and lacked supporting documentation. The defendant's occupation and construction on Kisumu/Dago/1300 constituted trespass. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her property. The claim for general damages for trespass was declined due to lack of proof. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed as she was not the registered owner of...

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1380 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Prisca Akech Ojunga (suing through her Attorneys John Fredrick Ogumbo & Millicent Nyandat); Defendant: Pamela Achieng Ochieng
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 61 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit succeeds in part; permanent injunction granted; claim for general damages dismissed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiff.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Ownership Disputes, Land Registration, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
English
Land and Property Trespass to Land Ownership Disputes Land Registration Injunctive Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prisca Akech Ojunga (suing through her Attorneys John Fredrick Ogumbo & Millicent Nyandat)

Plaintiff

Pamela Achieng Ochieng

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant trespassed on the plaintiff's property, Kisumu/Dago/1300.
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid and lawful interchange of the two parcels, Kisumu/Dago/1300 and Kisumu/Dago/1755.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and general damages for trespass.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Kisumu/Dago/1300 and that there was no valid or lawful interchange of the parcels with Kisumu/Dago/1755, as there was no written agreement or consent from both parties. The purported interchange was not legally effected and lacked supporting documentation. The defendant's occupation and construction on Kisumu/Dago/1300 constituted trespass. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her property. The claim for general damages for trespass was declined due to lack of proof. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed as she was not the registered owner of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit succeeds in part; permanent injunction granted; claim for general damages dismissed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiff.

Orders

  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her servants, agents, or any other persons from carrying on any activity, remaining upon, trespassing upon, or in any other manner interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet possession, occupation and/or enjoyment of property Title No. KISUMU/DAGO/1300.
  • Claim for general damages for trespass dismissed.