[2017] KEELC 2878 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2878 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and non-attendance, leaving only the Defendants' counter-claim for determination. The Defendants produced documentary evidence, including a sale agreement, transfer documents, and an official search, establishing that the 1st Defendant purchased and was registered as proprietor of L.R. No. 337/1642 (Grant No. 60354) after paying all requisite dues. There was no evidence to the contrary from the Plaintiff. The court held that the Defendants had proved their counter-claim on a balance of probabilities and were entitled to a declaration of ownership and costs.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2878 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Tamarind Meadows Limited; Defendant: Athi Farm Development Limited; Defendant: Frida Afandi; Defendant: George Sam Onyango; Defendant: Daniel Gichangi Kariuki; Defendant: John Fredrick Onyango
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Case Number
Civil Suit 47 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
counter-claim allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Land Ownership, Title Registration, Trespass, Counter Claims
Source Language
English
Land and Property Land Ownership Title Registration Trespass Counter Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamarind Meadows Limited

Plaintiff

Athi Farm Development Limited

Defendant

Frida Afandi

Defendant

George Sam Onyango

Defendant

Daniel Gichangi Kariuki

Defendant

John Fredrick Onyango

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant is the lawful registered proprietor of L.R. No. 337/1642 and Grant No. 60354.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and general damages for alleged trespass.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants are entitled to a declaration of ownership and costs as sought in the counter-claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and non-attendance, leaving only the Defendants' counter-claim for determination. The Defendants produced documentary evidence, including a sale agreement, transfer documents, and an official search, establishing that the 1st Defendant purchased and was registered as proprietor of L.R. No. 337/1642 (Grant No. 60354) after paying all requisite dues. There was no evidence to the contrary from the Plaintiff. The court held that the Defendants had proved their counter-claim on a balance of probabilities and were entitled to a declaration of ownership and costs.

Court Disposition

counter-claim allowed; plaintiff's suit dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • A declaration is hereby issued that the 1st Defendant is the registered proprietor of Land Reference number 337/1642 and Grant number 60354.
  • The Plaintiff to pay the costs of the suit and the counter-claim.