[2016] KEELC 918 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 918 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff, as administratrix of the deceased's estate, had proved on a balance of probabilities that her late husband lawfully acquired the suitland and that the shares were properly transferred to him. The first defendant, having been entrusted to care for the land, took advantage of his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 918 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Veronica Aore Were; Defendant: Joseph Ondiek Keno; Defendant: Trans-Nzoia Investment Company
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 29 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Eviction Orders, Share Transfer Disputes, Administration of Estates
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Orders Share Transfer Disputes Administration of Estates

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

Veronica Aore Were

Plaintiff

Joseph Ondiek Keno

Defendant

Trans-Nzoia Investment Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant unlawfully occupied Plot No. 1110 at Namanjalala farm belonging to the deceased's estate.
  2. 2 Whether the shares of the deceased in the second defendant company were fraudulently transferred to the first defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff, as administratrix, is entitled to re-transfer of the deceased's shares and eviction of the first defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, as administratrix of the deceased's estate, had proved on a balance of probabilities that her late husband lawfully acquired the suitland and that the shares were properly transferred to him. The first defendant, having been entrusted to care for the land, took advantage of his position after the deceased's death to fraudulently acquire the shares and refuse to vacate the property. The defendants failed to contest the plaintiff's evidence or provide any defence. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an eviction order against the first defendant, a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the suitland, and an order for the...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • An order of eviction against the first defendant from Plot No. 1110 at Namanjalala farm.
  • A permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or anyone claiming through him from interfering with the suitland after eviction.