[2010] KEHC 457 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land and that the Defendant occupies the land without any lawful claim or consent. The Defendant's occupation was held to amount to trespass, violating the Plaintiff's right to exclusive...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 457 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard C. Yaban; Defendant: Kipngerechi Towett
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 63 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Plaintiff; eviction of Defendant ordered; costs to Plaintiff; mesne profits denied.
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Eviction, Registered Land Title, Mesne Profits
- 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
Richard C. Yaban
Plaintiff
Kipngerechi Towett
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the suit land and entitled to possession.
- 2 Whether the Defendant's occupation amounts to trespass.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to eviction and mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land and that the Defendant occupies the land without any lawful claim or consent. The Defendant's occupation was held to amount to trespass, violating the Plaintiff's right to exclusive possession. The absence of any defence or evidence from the Defendant further strengthened the Plaintiff's case. The court therefore ordered the eviction of the Defendant from the suit land and awarded costs to the Plaintiff. The claim for mesne profits was denied due to lack of evidence.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Plaintiff; eviction of Defendant ordered; costs to Plaintiff; mesne profits denied.
Orders
- The Defendant shall be evicted from Kericho/Kipkimolwa/1067 within 30 days from the date of judgment.
- The Defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CIVIL CAUSE NO. 63 OF 1998
RICHARD C. YABAN …………...................................................................................……………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIPNGERECHI TOWETT ……….................................................................................………………..DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff, Richard C. Yapan,filed this suit against Kipngerechi Towett on 20th November, 1998 seeking eviction of the latter from the land known as Kericho/Kipkimolwa/1067 (“the suit land”) which the Plaintiff averred in his plaint that his property and is registered in his name. The Plaint states that the Defendant is in possession and occupation of the suit land without the Plaintiff’s consent.
The Defendant entered appearance to the summons on 21st December, 1998 through his advocates, Messrs Migiro & company. No defence was ever filed.
The suit came up for hearing before me on 26th July, 2010. The Plaintiff testified but did not call other witnesses. He told the court in his evidence that he became the registered proprietor of the suit land on 27th November, 1995. He produced the Title Deed to the suit land to prove this. It shows that the land measures 2. 93 hectares and is registered under the RegisteredLandAct, Cap 300. He further told the court that he did not allow the Defendant to be on his land and that he wanted to forceably throw him out but he feared there might be breach of peace and consequently filed this suit. He is desirous of making use of his land, he said, but was unable to do so due to wrongful occupation by the Defendant. It was his evidence that the Defendant has put up a house on the suit land. The Plaintiff also sought mesne profits against the Defendant.
Mr. Migiro, learned counsel for the Defendant, cross examined the Plaintiff. What came out of the cross examination was that the Plaintiff acquired the suit land from his father and that the Plaintiff’s father may have promised to sell to the Defendant a portion of his land but did not do so before he died.
I have perused the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff which is the only evidence tendered in this suit. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has established that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land. I am also satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant is on the suit land without any lawful claim or right and without the consent of the Plaintiff. It is my finding that the Defendant’s possession and occupation of the suit land amounts to a tort of trespass. I so hold. The Defendant is a trespasser and has violated the Plaintiff’s right to occupy and use his land.
I have no alternative but to find in favour of the Plaintiff which I do. I enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and order eviction of the Defendant from the suit land within 30 days from the date of delivery of this judgment. The Defendant shall pay the costs of this suit to the Plaintiff.
I decline to award mesne profits as no evidence was led in this regard.
DATED at KERICHO this 17th day of November, 2010
G.B.M. KARIUKI, SC
RESIDENT JUDGE
COUNSEL APPEARING
Mr. Oboso advocate for the Plaintiff
Mr. Migiro advocate for the Defendant