[2017] KEELC 2517 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants had no legal authority or relationship to the deceased that would entitle them to sell Plot No. 408. They were not relatives nor holders of letters of administration. The sale to the 3rd defendant was therefore illegal and void. The plaintiff, as the duly appointed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2517 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rael Minayo (suing as Administrator of the Estate of Shem Odanga Achara); Defendant: Linet Kagea Embuku; Defendant: Shem Mudogo; Defendant: Kisang Lowana
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 111 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Intermeddling With Estate, Proprietary Rights, Eviction, Permanent Injunction
- 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
Rael Minayo (suing as Administrator of the Estate of Shem Odanga Achara)
Plaintiff
Linet Kagea Embuku
Defendant
Shem Mudogo
Defendant
Kisang Lowana
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants had authority to sell Plot No. 408 belonging to the deceased's estate.
- 2 Whether the 3rd defendant acquired any proprietary rights over Plot No. 408.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration, eviction order, permanent injunction, and damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants had no legal authority or relationship to the deceased that would entitle them to sell Plot No. 408. They were not relatives nor holders of letters of administration. The sale to the 3rd defendant was therefore illegal and void. The plaintiff, as the duly appointed administrator, had capacity to bring the suit and was entitled to the reliefs sought. The court held that the defendants had no proprietary rights over the suit land, and the plaintiff had proved her case on a balance of probabilities. As no evidence of actual damage was provided, only nominal damages were awarded.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
Orders
- A declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants have no proprietary rights over Plot No. 408 situated in Keiyo in Kwanza Location within Trans-Nzoia County.
- A permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents or any other person claiming under them from cultivating and/or in any manner interfering with Plot No. 408.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 111 OF 2016
RAEL MINAYO (suing as
Administrator of the Estate of
SHEM ODANGA ACHARA..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LINET KAGEA EMBUKU.........................................1STDEFENDANT
SHEM MUDOGO......................................................2NDDEFENDANT
KISANG LOWANA.....................................................3RDDEFENDANT
J U D G E M E N T
1. The defendants named in this suit never entered appearance and the case proceeded to formal proof on 17/3/2017. The court perused the affidavit of service by Samuel Nyang’au Getonto sworn on 1st August, 2016 and established that service of summons and plaint had been property effected.
2. The plaintiff’s case as stated in the plaint dated 19/7/2016 and filed in court on the same day is that: she is the administrator of the Estate of Shem Odanga Achara; the land known as Plot No. 408 situated in Keiyo in Kwanza Location in Trans-Nzoia Count was registered in the deceased’s name; the 1st and 2nd defendant sold the plot to the 3rd defendant without the consent of beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate; this is intermeddling, and the 3rd defendant ought to be evicted from the land. She prays for judgement against the defendants jointly and severally for a declaration that the defendants have no proprietary rights over the suitland and that an eviction order should be issued against the 3rd defendant. It is also prayed that a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, and their agents from cultivating and/or in any manner interfering with the suitland be issued.
3. In her evidence in chief the plaintiff reiterated that she is the administrator of her deceased husband’s estate. She testified that it is the third defendant who is currently utilizing the suitland. She stated that the 1st and 2nd defendants, who sold the land, are not even her relatives, but are neighbours to the plot. She stated that she had reported the dispute to the local administrators but the same had not been resolved, hence this suit. She produced 7 documents as per the list of documents filed in court on 19/7/2016. She said that she wants an injunction as against the 3rd defendant payment for use of the land by the 3rd defendant since 2016, and costs of the suit.
4. A perusal of the documentary evidence supports the plaintiff’s averments above. The grant of letters of administration to the deceased’s estate is dated 26/5/2016 hence the plaintiff had capacity to institute these proceedings on behalf of the estate.
5. The Keiyo Farm Company Limited area list of members shows that the deceased was listed as the allottee of Plot No. 408. The letter dated 13/11/2015 from the Assistant County Commissioner addressed to the 1st and 2nd defendants has content that suggests that the 1st and 2nd defendants had at one point in time agreed to refund the 3rd defendant the purchase price by 30/10/2015 which they failed to do.
6. There was no defence filed to the claim. The court finds that the plaintiff has proved her claim on a balance of probabilities. The transfer of Plot No. 408 by the 1st and 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant was illegal. The 1st and 2nd defendant had no relationship, leave alone authority, with the deceased which could enable them sell the plot. They were not relatives to the deceased or holders of letters of administration to the deceased’s estate as the plaintiff is. They had no justification to sell the deceased’s land. They never sought any consent from the administrator. The administrator only came to learn of the sale after it had taken place. They pocketed the proceeds of the sale. They are the authors of the whole mischief.
7. I therefore enter judgement for the plaintiff in this suit against the defendants jointly and severally and issue the following orders:-
a. An order of declaration shall issue declaring that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants have no proprietary rights over Plot No. 408 situated in Keiyo in Kwanza Location within Trans-Nzoia County.
b. An order of permanent injunction shall hereby issue restraining the defendants and their agents or any other person claiming under them from cultivating and/or in any manner interfering with the suitland comprised in Plot No. 408 situated in Keiyo in Kwanza Location within Trans-Nzoia County.
c. Costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendants.
d. As no evidence relating to proof of damage was presented before the court, prayer No. (c) is granted but only for a nominal sum of Kshs.100,000/= (One Hundred Thousand Kenya Shillings) as against the defendants jointly and severally.
It is so ordered.
Signed, dated and delivered at Kitale on this 30th day of May, 2017.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
30/05/2017
Before - Mwangi Njoroge Judge
Court Assistant - Isabellah
Mr. Teti for the Plaintiff.
Judgement read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
30/05/2017