[2019] KEELC 3747 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3747 (KLR)

The Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish that the late Lilian Wanjiku Thuku was the rightful allottee of Plot No.014. Although the Plaintiffs produced an ownership certificate, they did not call any officials from Kamae Resettlement Project Phase II to verify its authenticity or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3747 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Thuku Kanui; Plaintiff: Ann Fidelis Ng'endo; Defendant: Lilian Wathithi Muigai
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 642 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Judges
LN Gacheru
Legal Topics
Ownership Disputes, Allocation of Land, Burden of Proof, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Ownership Disputes Allocation of Land Burden of Proof Injunctive Relief

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Thuku Kanui

Plaintiff

Ann Fidelis Ng'endo

Plaintiff

Lilian Wathithi Muigai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs are the legal owners of Plot No.014 at Kamae Resettlement Project Phase Two.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief against the Defendant for alleged trespass.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proof required to establish their claim to the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish that the late Lilian Wanjiku Thuku was the rightful allottee of Plot No.014. Although the Plaintiffs produced an ownership certificate, they did not call any officials from Kamae Resettlement Project Phase II to verify its authenticity or to confirm the allocation. The Defendant, despite not filing a Defence or appearing in court, had placed on record documents suggesting her ownership, including a sale agreement, a certificate, and supporting affidavits from Scheme officials. The Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property, as the Defendant had constructed and lived on it. The court found that the...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs' case is dismissed in its entirety.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.