[2009] KEHC 1752 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that they were the registered proprietors of the suit premises and that the defendants had unlawfully occupied the land without any color of right. The plaintiffs' efforts to have the defendants vacate voluntarily, including issuance of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1752 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Mwangi Kamau; Plaintiff: Ellam Minju Kamweru; Plaintiff: Johnson Muraguri Muriuki; Plaintiff: Wilson Waihenya Muriuki; Plaintiff: Moses Miano Muriuki; Plaintiff: James Kamwere Muriuki; Plaintiff: Erastus Muraguri Muriuki; Plaintiff: Nelson Guandaru Muriuki; Defendant: Lelereko Lendira & 36 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment After Interlocutory Judgment and Formal Proof
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs. Declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, eviction orders granted. Defendants to vacate within 45 days or be forcibly evicted.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Trespass to Land, Eviction Orders, Registered Proprietorship, Injunctive Relief
- 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 Mwangi Kamau
Plaintiff
Ellam Minju Kamweru
Plaintiff
Johnson Muraguri Muriuki
Plaintiff
Wilson Waihenya Muriuki
Plaintiff
Moses Miano Muriuki
Plaintiff
James Kamwere Muriuki
Plaintiff
Erastus Muraguri Muriuki
Plaintiff
Nelson Guandaru Muriuki
Plaintiff
Lelereko Lendira & 36 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment After Interlocutory Judgment and Formal Proof
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit premises and entitled to exclusive possession.
- 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully occupied and trespassed on the plaintiffs' land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eviction orders and a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that they were the registered proprietors of the suit premises and that the defendants had unlawfully occupied the land without any color of right. The plaintiffs' efforts to have the defendants vacate voluntarily, including issuance of notices and seeking administrative intervention, were unsuccessful. The defendants did not contest the plaintiffs' title or present any defence. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs sought, including a declaration of ownership, a permanent injunction, and eviction orders. The defendants were granted forty-five days to vacate the premises, failing which...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs. Declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, eviction orders granted. Defendants to vacate within 45 days or be forcibly evicted.
Orders
- A declaration that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the suit premises.
- A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from occupying or utilizing the suit premises.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Case 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 of 2009
RICHARD MWANGI KAMAU......................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS .............DEFENDANTS
CONSOLIDATED WITH
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.19 OF 2009
ELLAM MINJU KAMWERU........................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS.................DEFENDANT
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.21 OF 2009
JOHNSON MURAGURI MURIUKI.............................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS...............DEFENDANTS
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.22 OF 2009
WILSON WAIHENYA MURIUKI..................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS...............DEFENDANTS
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.23 OF 2009
MOSES MIANO MURIUKI.............................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS...............DEFENDANTS
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.24 OF 2009
JAMES KAMWERE MURIUKI....................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS...............DEFENDANTS
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.25 OF 2009
ERASTUS MURAGURI MURIUKI...............................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS...............DEFENDANTS
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO.26 OF 2009
NELSON GUANDARU MURIUKI...............................PLAINTIFF
Versus
LELEREKO LENDIRA & 36 OTHERS ...............DEFENDANTS
J U D G M E N T
These eight civil cases were consolidated for ease of hearing. The plaintiffs obtained interlocutory judgment default of appearance by the defendants. The cause of action is the same. The prayers sought in the various plaints are the same. The defendants too are the same. In the premises it was only fair and just that the eight cases be consolidated and heard as one.
The plaintiffs’ case against the defendants jointly and severally is for a declaration that they have no right to occupy and utilize land parcel numbers LR. No.13543/11 Laikipia, 13543/12 Laikipia, 13543/23 Laikipia, 12543/24 Laikipia, 13543/25 Laikipia, 13543/26 Laikipia, 13543/27 Laikipia and 13543/28 Laikipia respectively hereinafter referred to as “the suit premises,” a permanent injunction against the defendants to cease their unlawful occupation of the said suit premises, an order that the defendants do vacate the said suit premises and in default they be evicted therefrom and costs of the suits. The plaintiffs’ claims were anchored on the fact that at all material times the plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the aforesaid suit premises. However the defendants jointly and severally and without any color of right or other legal justification unlawfully invaded the suit premises and settled therein to graze on the same and other adjacent parcels alleging to be exercising their pastoralist way of life. The plaintiffs’ further claim that the defendants’ unlawful acts have denied them the use and benefit of their private properties. Through themselves and provincial administration, they have issued Notices to the defendants to vacate the suit premises but the defendants have adamantly refused and or neglected to comply, hence this suit.
Though the defendants were individually and personally served with summons to enter appearance, none of them saw the need to answer to the summons. Accordingly on 10th June, 2009, through Messrs Lucy Mwai & Company Advocates, the plaintiffs’ applied for interlocutory judgment in default of appearance. The same was duly granted on 11th June, 2009. Thereafter the cases were set down for formal proof.
On 25th June, 2009, the formal commenced before. Only one plaintiff testified on his own behalf and on behalf of the other plaintiffs. Mr. Richard Mwangi Kamau testified that they sued the defendants because they had trespassed on their various parcels of land. The defendants first entered the suit premises in 2002 and constructed Manyattas. Since then they have tried albeit unsuccessfully to evict them by giving them notices, talking to them and also seeking the intervention of the provincial administration to no avail. The witness tendered in evidence, copies of the notice they had issued and served on the defendants. The witness also tendered in evidence copies of the title deeds in respect of their various parcels of land. The plaintiff therefore pleaded with me to issue eviction orders as he was persuaded and convinced that the defendants would not be able to vacate the suit premises unless ordered so by the court. That was the reason that they were in court. With that the plaintiffs’ closed their case.
Having carefully read and considered the plaint and the oral testimony of Richard Mwangi Kamau on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs, I am satisfied on the uncontroverted and challenged evidence aforesaid that the plaintiffs have on the balance of probabilities proved their case. They have demonstrated that they own the suit premises. They have also demonstrated to my satisfaction their efforts at getting the defendants to move out of the suit remises voluntarily have been to no avail. I have even been shown News item in the standard Newspaper of 20th December, 2008 in which the defendants had vowed not to vacate the suit premises despite the Government’s December 31 deadline to relocate or be forcibly evicted. It would appear from that Newspaper cutting that about two months earlier, the then Lakipia East D.C, Mr. Daniel Nduti, had given the defendants and other squatters until December, 31st to move out or be forcibly evicted. The defendants ignored that directive. The defendants are not saying that the land belongs to them nor have they challenged the plaintiffs’ entitlement to the same.
That being the case, I think that the plaintiffs were right in seeking the court’s intervention. The plaintiff having satisfied me as to the merits of their case I would grant them prayers (a), (b) (c) and (d) set out their various plaints. The defendants shall have forty five (45) days from the date of delivery of judgment to voluntarily vacate the suit premises failing which they shall be forcibly evicted.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 16th day of September, 2009.
M.S.A. MAKHANDIA
JUDGE