[2017] KEELC 1439 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property by producing a valid title deed and supporting documents, including the sale agreement and mutation forms. The vendor, Omusebe Angote, corroborated the plaintiff's evidence and confirmed the sale and transfer of the land. The defendants,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1439 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Maket Chemonges; Defendant: Richard Lotukei; Defendant: Solomon Mohi; Defendant: Imbosa Angote; Defendant: Zakayo Angote
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 65 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants jointly and severally as sought in Prayers (a), (b), and (c) of the plaint.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Adverse Possession, Title Registration
- 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 Maket Chemonges
Plaintiff
Richard Lotukei
Defendant
Solomon Mohi
Defendant
Imbosa Angote
Defendant
Zakayo Angote
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the legal owner of Plot No. Cherangany/Kapcherop/2773.
- 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully occupied the plaintiff's land and prevented him from taking possession.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit property by producing a valid title deed and supporting documents, including the sale agreement and mutation forms. The vendor, Omusebe Angote, corroborated the plaintiff's evidence and confirmed the sale and transfer of the land. The defendants, despite being served, failed to appear or contest the claim. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established his case on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to judgment as prayed. The defendants' continued occupation was unlawful, and the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants jointly and severally as sought in Prayers (a), (b), and (c) of the plaint.
Orders
- The plaintiff is declared the legal owner of Plot No. Cherangany/Kapcherop/2773.
- The defendants are ordered to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 65 OF 2017
STEPHEN MAKET CHEMONGES ……………... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. RICHARD LOTUKEI
2. SOLOMON MOHI
3. IMBOSA ANGOTE
4. ZAKAYO ANGOTE…………………………… DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
1. This matter came up for formal proof on its very first day of hearing as the defendants despite having been dully served, failed to file any memorandum of appearance or defence.
2. The plaintiff’s case is that he is the legal owner of Plot No. Cherangany/Kapcherop/2773 measuring 1 ½ acres. The same is a resultant subdivision of a larger Plot No. Cherangany/Kapcherop/2455. The plaintiff bought the suitland from one Omusebe Augote who also testified in favour of the plaintiff in this suit.
3. The defendants are the sons of PW2, Omusebe Angote. The plaintiff states that the defendants invaded the suitland and prevented the plaintiff from taking possession sometimes in the year 2015 and they have remained thereon to date.
4. The plaintiff produced as P. Exhibit 4 a copy of title to the land. It shows that it was issued on 14/3/2017 and that he is the registered owner. He also produced a copy of the registered mutation form that was registered to give rise to the plot as P. Exhibit 3. It is dated 14/3/2017. It shows that Parcel No. Cherangany/Kapcherop/2455 was subdivided into two Parcels, No. 2773measuring 0. 55 Ha and plot No. 2774measuring 0. 15 Ha and a road measuring 0. 05 Ha. The same was signed on 9/2/2017 by the vendor before registration.
5. The sale agreement between PW1 and PW2 was produced as P. Exhibit 1. It shows that the plaintiff bought the land from PW2 at the consideration of Kshs.225,000/=. The agreement has a very strict condition that whoever fails to fulfill it is liable to refund three times the value of the monies paid. A demand notice dated 1/2/2017 was produced in evidence. It was written by the plaintiff’s advocate and addressed to the defendants. The plaintiff stated that the defendants did not respondent to this demand notice.
6. PW2 supported the plaintiffs claim. He admitted that he sold the suitland to the plaintiff after distributing his other land amongst his wives. He avers that the defendants who are his sons, are entitled to and have a share in the land that PW2 allocated their mothers. He admitted that all legal processes including attending Land Control Board meeting were fulfilled. He would like the plaintiff to get his land.
7. I have considered all the contents of the plaint and the evidence of PW1 and PW2. I am convinced that the plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. The defendants failed to appear despite being served as described in the affidavit of service sworn by one Godfrey Masinde Sitati on 26/5/2017.
8. I therefore enter judgement for the plaintiff against all the defendants jointly and severally as sought in Prayers No. (a), (b)and(c) of the plaint dated 7/4/2017.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 28th day of September, 2017.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
28/09/2017
Before – Mwangi Njoroge Judge
Court Assistant – Picoty
Ms. Mweneke holding brief for Mr. Chebii for plaintiff
N/A for Defendant
Judgement read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
28/09/2017