[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit property.
- 2 Whether the defendants trespassed onto the plaintiffs' land.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
56 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC. CASE NO. 951 OF 2012
RAPHAEL KARIUKI WAMAE............................................1ST PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH GITONGA WAMAE............................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NANCY WANYOIKE........................................................I ST DEFENDANT
TRANSAFRICA ENGINEERING WORKS LTD..........2 ND DEFENDANT
JUSTUS WAINAINA NJUGUNA....................................3 RD DEFENDANT
ANDREW MAINA NJUGUNA.........................................4 TH DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiffs brought this suit on 5/12/ 2012 through a plaint of even date. An amended plaint dated 22/3/2013 was filed on 25/3/2013. A further amended plaint dated 16/10/2013 was filed on 18/10/2013. The plaintiffs contended that they were the registered proprietors of Land Title Number: Thika Municipality Block 5/2012 (the suit property) and that the defendant had trespassed onto the suit property and had erected a perimeter wall around the suit property. Arising from the said trespass, they had been constrained to incur costs of hiring an excavator and low-loader to bring down the perimeter wall. Thereafter, they dug up holes with a view to putting up a live wire fence, but the defendants filled up the holes.
2. Aggrieved by the defendants’ continued trespass, they brought the suit seeking the following orders:
1) Special damages.
a) Cost of hire of excavator and low-loader amounting to Kshs.72, 500/=.
b) Deposit for fencing the plot amounting to Kshs. 150,000/=.
2) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or through her servants or agents from trespassing, encroaching on the plaintiffs’ land, and dispossessing the plaintiffs’ off their land or any portion of their land thereto.
3) General damages.
4) Costs of the suit
5) Interests on (1) and (4) above at court rates.
3. On 18/10/2013, the firm of Violet Barasa & Company advocates filed a notice of appointment on behalf of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants but did not file a defence to the suit. On 13/7/2017, I directed the plaintiffs to serve summons through a notice in either the Daily Nation or the Standard Newspaper Newspaper. Subsequently, summons were served through a notice published in the Daily Nation on 23/8/2017. No defence was filed by the defendants. Consequently, the suit proceeded to hearing as an undefended cause.
4. At the hearing the plaintiffs called one witness, RAPHAEL KARIUKI WAMAE – PW1. He adopted his written statement dated 16/10/2013 and produced the following 21 documents.
a) Letter of Authority
b) Letter dated 15th March, 1982
c) Records of Trans-Africa Engineering Works
d) Application for Industrial plot – Thika Town
e) Letter of Allotment dated 18/12/1984
f) Letter To Commissioner of Lands dated 8th October, 1990
g) Letter of Allotment dated 18/6/1999
h) Certificate of lease
i) Official Search
j) Bundle of receipt
k) Letter dated 31st January 2011
l) Receipts for payments of rates
m) Letters for payments of rates
n) Letters dated 25/9/2012
o) Map
p) Letters dated 9th October, 2012
q) Photographs
r) Receipt dated 13/11/12, 12/11/12
s) Photographs
t) Certificate of Incorporation
u) Details trans Africa Engineering Works Limited
v) Receipt for payment of search
5. The plaintiffs, through counsel, subsequently filed written submissions dated 18/1/2019 in which they reiterated their claim and urged the court to grant the prayers sought in the plaint.
6. I have considered the tenor and import of the plaintiffs’ suit. I have also considered the evidence presented by the plaintiffs and their counsel’s submissions. The plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence were uncontroverted.
7. Among other documents, PW 1 produced a certificate of lease together with an official search. The two documents bear that the plaintiffs as the registered proprietors of the suit property. PW1 also produced a receipt dated 13/11/2012 for Kshs 72,500 relating to hire of excavator and low-loader, issued by M/s Welltech & Supplies. Further, he produced a receipt dated 12/11/2012 for Kshs 150,000 relating to labour costs, issued by M/s Tepot Builders & Construction.
8. In the absence of defence and controverting evidence, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probabilities. I will accordingly enter judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the further amended plaint. Costs will include monies paid to the newspaper proprietors to buy space for the notice(s).
9. No basis was laid either through evidence or submissions to support the claim for general damages. I will therefore not award that limb of the claim.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY 2019.
B M EBOSO
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr Obuya holding brief for Mr Rotich advocate for the plaintiffs
June Nafula - Court Clerk