[2010] KEHC 152 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 152 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff, Simiyu Namawanga, had proved on a balance of probabilities that he is the registered proprietor of Elgon/Kaptama/265, as evidenced by the original certificate of title produced in court. The defendants, having failed to enter appearance or file a defence, did not controvert the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 152 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Simiyu Namawanga; Defendant: Shem Kororia; Defendant: Peter Kiminyi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 65 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof; Interlocutory Judgment Entered Due to Non Appearance by Defendants
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; eviction order granted; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Trespass, Registered Land Ownership
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Trespass Registered Land Ownership

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simiyu Namawanga

Plaintiff

Shem Kororia

Defendant

Peter Kiminyi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof; Interlocutory Judgment Entered Due to Non Appearance by Defendants

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Elgon/Kaptama/265 entitled to exclusive possession.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants trespassed onto the plaintiff's land without lawful justification.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, Simiyu Namawanga, had proved on a balance of probabilities that he is the registered proprietor of Elgon/Kaptama/265, as evidenced by the original certificate of title produced in court. The defendants, having failed to enter appearance or file a defence, did not controvert the plaintiff's evidence. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession of his land and that the continued occupation by the defendants constitutes trespass. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order and costs as prayed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; eviction order granted; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Eviction order against the defendants, their agents, servants, or family from Elgon/Kaptama/265 if they fail to vacate within 90 days of service of the order.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.