[2006] KEHC 2144 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had produced sufficient documentary evidence, including the original title deed and allocation letters, proving he is the registered proprietor of NAKURU/BORON/285. The defendant, despite filing a defence, failed to attend court or provide any evidence to challenge the plaintiff's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2144 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: William Gwaro Kerema; Defendant: Rose Chelangat Mwolomet
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 85 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Eviction, 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
William Gwaro Kerema
Plaintiff
Rose Chelangat Mwolomet
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the legal owner of land parcel NAKURU/BORON/285.
- 2 Whether the defendant's occupation of the suit land is unlawful and warrants eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had produced sufficient documentary evidence, including the original title deed and allocation letters, proving he is the registered proprietor of NAKURU/BORON/285. The defendant, despite filing a defence, failed to attend court or provide any evidence to challenge the plaintiff's claim. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had met the required standard of proof for ownership and was entitled to a declaration of ownership and an eviction order against the defendant, her agents, and servants. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- A declaration that the plaintiff is the legal owner of land parcel NAKURU/BORON/285.
- An eviction order is issued against the defendant, her agents, and servants from land parcel NAKURU/BORON/285.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Case 85 of 2005
WILLIAM GWARO KEREMA …………....................................................……..…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ROSE CHELANGAT MWOLOMET ……................................................….... DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
William Gwaro Kerema filed this suit against Rose Chelangat Mwolomet seeking for a declaration that he is the legal owner of all that parcel of land known as NAKURU/BORON/285. Further the plaintiff sought for an eviction order to issue evicting the defendant by herself, her agents, and servants from the said parcel.
Briefly the plaintiff’s case was that he is the registered absolute proprietor of all that land comprising in the title known as NAKURU/BORON/285 measuring approximately 2. 0 Hectares. The plaintiff showed to court the original copy of title that was issued to him on 30th October 1998. Prior to the issuance of title the plaintiff wrote a letter to the office of President requesting to be considered for allocation of land. On 5th February 1982, he was given a letter by the Nakuru District Commissioner which duly allocated him plot number 285 which was by the District Settlement Officer, Nakuru District. The plaintiff was duly shown the plot and he started on developments of the same.
In 1992 due to the instability brought about by tribal clashes, his house was burnt down, his cow was stolen and he was forced to run away for fear of his life. After the classes subsided he went back to his land when he found the defendant had taken illegal occupation. Due to this interference, he filed a complaint against the defendant with the local police and she was charged before the Molo Senior Resident Magistrate’s court in Criminal Case No.2175 of 2004 but this did not assist the plaintiff as the defendant continues to occupy his land and thus he filed this suit.
On the part of the defendant although she filed a statement of defence she did not attend court to give evidence in support of her defence.
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim as well as the documents produced by the plaintiff in support of his ownership of the suit premises.
The plaintiff has sought for declaratory judgment because of the acts of direct interference with his quiet possession of the suit premises by the defendant.
I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case to the required standard, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit premises and therefore entitled to the orders sought.
Accordingly, judgment is entered for the plaintiff by way of:-
(a)A declaration that the plaintiff is the legal owner of all that land parcel known as NAKURU/BORON/285.
(b)An eviction order is hereby issued against the defendant by herself, her agents, servants from land parcel number NAKURU/BORON/285.
(c)The plaintiff is entitled to his costs of this suit.
It is so ordered.
Judgment read and signed on 26th May 2006.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE