[2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including a certificate of title and demand notices, that he was the registered proprietor of L.R No. 8XX4/13 and entitled to immediate and exclusive possession. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5328 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Henry Mwasame Wanyonyi; Defendant: Peter Nyongesa; Defendant: John Wafula; Defendant: Mary Wanjala; Defendant: Moses Wekesa alias Acre Nane; Defendant: Manyasi Wekesa; Defendant: Samuel Bunyasi; Defendant: David Kisembe Nyongesa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Case 2 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed. Permanent injunction and eviction order granted.
Judges
CK Nzili
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Eviction Orders, Title Registration, Right to Property
Source Language
en
Land and Property Tort Law Trespass to Land Eviction Orders Title Registration Right to Property

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Mwasame Wanyonyi

Plaintiff

Peter Nyongesa

Defendant

John Wafula

Defendant

Mary Wanjala

Defendant

Moses Wekesa alias Acre Nane

Defendant

Manyasi Wekesa

Defendant

Samuel Bunyasi

Defendant

David Kisembe Nyongesa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful and exclusive owner of L.R No. 8XX4/13 entitled to immediate possession.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants trespassed onto the plaintiff's land without justification.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and eviction orders against the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established, through documentary evidence including a certificate of title and demand notices, that he was the registered proprietor of L.R No. 8XX4/13 and entitled to immediate and exclusive possession. The defendants, having failed to appear or defend the suit, did not challenge the plaintiff's evidence. The law presumes the validity of the plaintiff's title unless impeached for fraud or illegality, which was not alleged or proved. The court held that the defendants' entry and occupation of the land constituted trespass, actionable per se, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought, including a permanent injunction and eviction order.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed. Permanent injunction and eviction order granted.

Orders

  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the defendants from entering, remaining, or erecting structures on L.R No. 8XX4/13.
  • An eviction order is issued against the defendants to be enforced by a Court Bailiff in accordance with the law.