[2002] KEHC 721 (KLR)
The plaintiffs, as registered owners of the suit property, had only temporarily permitted the defendant to operate a nursery school on the land. Upon withdrawal of this consent, the defendant had no legal right to remain. The defendant failed to adduce any evidence to support its continued occupation or to challenge...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 721 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Kariuki Ngugi; Plaintiff: Peter Ndungu Mburu; Plaintiff: Jane Tharau (suing as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of Mwana Mukia Farm No. 2 Welfare Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Association); Defendant: Board of Governors Manjiri Primary School
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 2339 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiffs. Eviction order granted. No damages awarded. Costs to the plaintiffs.
- Judges
- GP Mbito
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Trespass, Ownership of Land
- 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
Stephen Kariuki Ngugi
Plaintiff
Peter Ndungu Mburu
Plaintiff
Jane Tharau (suing as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of Mwana Mukia Farm No. 2 Welfare Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Association)
Plaintiff
Board of Governors Manjiri Primary School
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs, as registered owners, are entitled to evict the defendant from L.R. No. 5985/6.
- 2 Whether the defendant had authority or consent to operate a primary school on the plaintiffs' land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for the defendant's continued occupation.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs, as registered owners of the suit property, had only temporarily permitted the defendant to operate a nursery school on the land. Upon withdrawal of this consent, the defendant had no legal right to remain. The defendant failed to adduce any evidence to support its continued occupation or to challenge the plaintiffs' authority. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to an order of eviction. However, as the plaintiffs did not provide evidence quantifying any damages suffered, no award for damages could be made. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, and the defendant was ordered to vacate the premises by a specified date.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiffs. Eviction order granted. No damages awarded. Costs to the plaintiffs.
Orders
- The defendant to vacate the suit premises (L.R. No. 5985/6) on or before 31st July, 2002.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 2339 OF 1999
1. STEPHEN KARIUKI NGUGI
2. PETER NDUNGU MBURU
3. JANE THARAU (suing as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of Mwana Mukia Farm No.
2 Welfare Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Association…….PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS
BOARD OF GOVERNORS MANJIRI PRIMARY SCHOOL…….DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
In this suit, the plaintiff who are the officials of Mwana Mukia Farm No. 2 Welfare Association and are also the registered owners of a piece of land known as L.R. No. 5985/6 on which the defendant operates from seek orders evicting the defendant therefrom and prohibiting it from trespassing thereon. They also seek damages and costs from the defendant. The defendant on the other hand contends that it had the permission of the members of the plaintiffs association to operate from the aforesaid piece of land and that the plaintiffs did not have the authority of the members to bring the suit.
The plaintiffs through the first plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had not been allowed to permanently operate from the suit premises. They had only temporarily allowed it to operate a nursery school therefrom as it contained the only a borehole from which the members obtained their water supplies. As the defendant did now brought a full primary school to the plot, it was feared that the school would contaminate the water and had required it to go back to where it had been operating. The witness denied it had been operating. The witness denied that the school still had their authority to operate from their plot and sought its eviction. No evidence was led on behalf of the defendant.
On preponderance of the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the applicants are the registered owners of the plot on which the defendant is currently operating from. It does not claim it and as those who only recently allowed it to operate therefrom temporarily have now withdrawn their consent, it has to relocate from their plot. They are therefore entitled to judgment for eviction of the defendant.
On damages, the plaintiffs did not lead evidence quantifying the loss they had suffered due to the defendant’s refusal to vacate the suit premises. I am therefore unable to award anything on that account.
In view of the above I enter judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in prayers (a) and (b) of the plaint. I also award costs against the defendant. The defendant to vacate the suit premises on or before 31st July, 2002. Orders accordingly.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 18th day of June, 2002.
G.P. Mbito
JUDGE