[2014] KEELC 62 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established lawful ownership of the suit land by producing a valid sale agreement, evidence of subdivision, land control board consent, and proof of long-term possession. The defendants, having failed to contest the claim or present any defence, left the plaintiff's evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELC 62 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: William Kiptoo Kiptumaril; Defendant: Tapyotin Kanda; Defendant: Daniel Keture; Defendant: William Keture
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 80 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Ownership Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Land Sale Agreements
- 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 Kiptoo Kiptumaril
Plaintiff
Tapyotin Kanda
Defendant
Daniel Keture
Defendant
William Keture
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of Title No. Cherangany/Koitogum/732 measuring 2 acres.
- 2 Whether the defendants unlawfully interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the suit land.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established lawful ownership of the suit land by producing a valid sale agreement, evidence of subdivision, land control board consent, and proof of long-term possession. The defendants, having failed to contest the claim or present any defence, left the plaintiff's evidence unchallenged. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction to protect his proprietary rights against unlawful interference by the defendants or anyone claiming under them. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- A declaration is issued that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of LR No. Cherangany/Koitogum/732 measuring 2 acres.
- A permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants and all those claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's user and quiet enjoyment of LR Cherangany/Koitogum/732.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
ELC NO. 80 OF 2014
WILLIAM KIPTOO KIPTUMARIL ::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TAPYOTIN KANDA
DANIEL KETURE
WILLIAM KETURE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS
J U D G E M E N T
INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff brought this suit against the defendants claiming the following reliefs;-
(a)A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of Title No. Cherangany/Koitogum/732 measuring 2 acres.
(b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants and all those claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's user and quiet enjoyment of th suit land.
(c) Costs
(d) Any other relief this Honourable court may deem just and fit to grant.
2. The defendants who were duly served with summons to enter appearance and file defence neither entered appearance nor filed defence. The hearing proceeded by way of formal proof.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
The Plaintiff testified that he is owner of Parcel No. Cherangany/Koitogum/732 (suit land). He bought the suit land in 1996 from one Keture Komen who is now deceased. He bought two acres at Kshs.25,000/= per acre. The surveyor came to the ground and excised his two acres from Keture Komen's land which was seven acres. The consent of the land control board was duly given.
After the death of Keture Komen in June, 2013, the defendants who are the deceased's nephews invaded part of his land and blocked an access road to his houses. The defendants claimed that now that the person who had sold him the land had died, he was not going to enjoy the land. The defendants later turned violent and assaulted the plaintiff and his son. The defendants were charged with a criminal offence vide Kitale Chief Magistrate's Court Criminal Case No. 2631 of 2013.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
The Plaintiff produced a sale agreement dated 3/8/1996 [Exhibit 1]. The agreement was entered into by the plaintiff and the late Keture Komen. This agreement was duly signed before the assistant chief of Chebai Sub-location Mr Daniel Kibor. There were other witnesses who were present. A surveyor went to the land and prepared a mutation [exhibit 3]. The deceased's land was sub divided into two portions of 5 and 2 acres each. Consent of the land control board was duly given as per letter of consent (exhibit 4). The deceased had also provided a copy of his identity card [exhibit 2]. The plaintiff's evidence has not been controverted. There is no reason why the defendants should interfere with the plaintiff's land which he has been enjoying for over 18 years. I find that the plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
DETERMINATION
A declaration is hereby issued declaring that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of LR No. Cherangany/Koitogun/732 measuring 2 acres. A permanent injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants and all those claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's user and quiet enjoyment of LR Cherangany/Koitugun/732. The plaintiff shall have costs of this suit.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 4th day of December, 2014.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr. Chebii for plaintiff.
Court Clerk – Isabellah.
E. OBAGA.
JUDGE.
4/12/2014.