[2010] KEHC 3143 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the three parcels of land, holds an absolute and indefeasible title under the Registered Land Act. The defendants, being his sons, may have a future inheritance claim but have no present legal right to unilaterally subdivide or take possession of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3143 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Vincent Machani; Defendant: Lacton Otao Machani; Defendant: Joel Moseti Machani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 164 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- plaintiff's suit succeeds; each party to bear own costs
- Legal Topics
- Registered Land Ownership, Family Land Disputes, Injunctions, Eviction, Succession Rights
- 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
Vincent Machani
Plaintiff
Lacton Otao Machani
Defendant
Joel Moseti Machani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants were entitled to unilaterally subdivide and take possession of the plaintiff's registered land parcels.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff, as registered proprietor, is entitled to eviction and injunction orders against the defendants in respect of parcels 1027 and 1394.
- 3 Whether the defendants have any present legal entitlement to the suit properties or only a future inheritance right.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the three parcels of land, holds an absolute and indefeasible title under the Registered Land Act. The defendants, being his sons, may have a future inheritance claim but have no present legal right to unilaterally subdivide or take possession of the land. Their actions in invading, subdividing, and harvesting crops from parcels 1027 and 1394 were unlawful. The court held that only upon the plaintiff's death can the defendants and their siblings seek to inherit the properties. For now, the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession and the reliefs sought, except that the family nature of the dispute warranted each...
Court Disposition
plaintiff's suit succeeds; each party to bear own costs
Orders
- Defendants to be evicted from parcels North Mugirango/Magwagwa 1/1027 and 1/1394.
- Permanent injunction granted restraining defendants from interfering with parcels 1027 and 1394.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA OF KISII
Civil Case 164 of 2004
VINCENT MACHANI…………………………………PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
LACTON OTAO MACHANI ….........................……1ST DEFENDANT
JOEL MOSETI MACHANI ……...........................…2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff had three wives. His first wife died leaving him with two sons who are the defendants herein. He was left with two wives each of whom has children. He is the registered owner of three parcels of land: North Mugirango/Magwagwa 1/1030, North Mugirango/Magwagwa 1/1027 and North Mugirango /Magwagwa 1/1394. He said 1030 was given to him by his late father. He bought 1027 and 1394, although the 1st `defendant says his late mother contributed to the purchase before she died. She was buried on 1027. The 1st defendant states that his grandfather (the plaintiff’s father) gave 1030 to him.
The defendants laid claim to the three parcels of land. The plaintiff came to court because the defendants, with the assistance of the local administration and without his authority or consent, descended on the three parcels of land and shared each into two parcels. One for themselves and one for the plaintiff. Parcels 1030 and 1394 have tea bushes on them planted by the plaintiff. He claims the defendants begun harvesting the tea bushes on the pieces they had taken. The suit was brought for their eviction from 1027 and 1394, and permanent injunction in respect of the two parcels. He stated that since 1030 is ancestral land, the defendants have an entitlement to a portion of it.
The defendants say they were forced to demand land because after their mother died the plaintiff and his second wife have subjected them to a lot of suffering. Their mother was cultivating 1027. However, the plaintiff is harvesting all produce (including tea) on the piece and taking with him all proceeds. They were forced to seek the assistance of the provincial administration to parcel out part of the lands above.
It is not in dispute that each defendant is above 18.
The 1st defendant testified that following his mother’s death, the plaintiff initially gave them half of 1030 and the whole of 1027. He gave 1394 to his second wife. He however changed his mind about this, and that is why they reported him to the provincial administration.
The position in law is that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the three parcels of land andprima facie,undersections 27 and 28 of the Registered Land Act (Cap.300),he has absolute and indefeasible claim to the parcels. When he eventually passes on, the defendants and all their siblings can seek to inherit the parcels and his other properties. For the time being, the defendants must hold their claim. It is good enough that their father has allowed them on 1027 and he is saying they have a claim to half of 1030. The claim is, however, yet to crystallize. Their actions in invading and parceling out parcels 1027 and 1394 to themselves and harvesting the tea crops thereon are illegal and have to be restrained.
In conclusion, the plaintiff’s suit succeeds. However, since this is a family dispute, I ask that each side bears its own costs.
Dated,signed and delivered at Kisii this 27th day of January, 2010.
A.O.MUCHELULE
JUDGE
27/1/2010
Before A.O.Muchelule-J
Court clerk-Bibu
Mr. Onyancha for plaintiff
Plaintiff-present
Defendants-present
A.O.MUCHELULE
JUDGE
27/1/2010