[2019] KEELC 3311 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3311 (KLR)

The plaintiffs established, through uncontroverted documentary evidence, that they are the registered proprietors of the suit property. The defendants, having failed to file a defence or contest the suit, did not challenge the plaintiffs' evidence of ownership or the acts of trespass. The court accepted the receipts...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3311 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Raphael Kariuki Wamae; Plaintiff: Joseph Gitonga Wamae; Defendant: Nancy Wanyoike; Defendant: Transafrica Engineering Works Ltd; Defendant: Justus Wainaina Njuguna; Defendant: Andrew Maina Njuguna
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 951 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the further amended plaint. General damages claim dismissed.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Injunctive Relief, Special Damages, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Trespass to Land Injunctive Relief Special Damages Ownership Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raphael Kariuki Wamae

Plaintiff

Joseph Gitonga Wamae

Plaintiff

Nancy Wanyoike

Defendant

Transafrica Engineering Works Ltd

Defendant

Justus Wainaina Njuguna

Defendant

Andrew Maina Njuguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants trespassed onto the plaintiffs' land.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to special damages for costs incurred in removing the perimeter wall and attempted fencing.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established, through uncontroverted documentary evidence, that they are the registered proprietors of the suit property. The defendants, having failed to file a defence or contest the suit, did not challenge the plaintiffs' evidence of ownership or the acts of trespass. The court accepted the receipts and documents produced by the plaintiffs as proof of special damages incurred in removing the perimeter wall and attempting to fence the property. The court found that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities and were entitled to special damages, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further trespass, costs of the suit (including...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the further amended plaint. General damages claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs awarded special damages of KES 72,500 for hire of excavator and low-loader.
  • Plaintiffs awarded special damages of KES 150,000 as deposit for fencing the plot.