[2018] KEELC 4116 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4116 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the first defendant had encroached onto his land by interfering with the boundary between plot numbers 1021 and 1023. The surveyor's report, which was unchallenged, confirmed the encroachment by the first defendant into the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4116 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samson Henry Kimilu; Plaintiff: Johnson Mulinge Kimilu; Defendant: David Kiamba Kithome; Defendant: Aimi Ma Kilungu Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 220 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Land Encroachment, Survey Evidence
Source Language
en
Land and Property Boundary Disputes Land Encroachment Survey Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samson Henry Kimilu

Plaintiff

Johnson Mulinge Kimilu

Plaintiff

David Kiamba Kithome

Defendant

Aimi Ma Kilungu Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant encroached on the plaintiff's land by interfering with the boundary between plot numbers 1021 and 1023.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order for placement of boundary beacons and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the beacons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the first defendant had encroached onto his land by interfering with the boundary between plot numbers 1021 and 1023. The surveyor's report, which was unchallenged, confirmed the encroachment by the first defendant into the plaintiff's parcel by 121.13 metres. The defendant's failure to participate in the proceedings or contest the evidence further strengthened the plaintiff's case. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought for the placement of boundary beacons and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the beacons, as well as costs of the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are at liberty to engage a surveyor to put up the boundary beacons between plot Nos. 1021 and 1023.
  • The defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the said beacons once put in place by the surveyor.