[2019] KEELC 2572 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2572 (KLR)

The court found that the suit property, Plot No. 34 Lumakanda Market, remains registered in the name of the deceased, Johnson Boge, and was not included in the succession proceedings. The purported family agreement to allocate the property to the plaintiff was not representative of all beneficiaries and thus could...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2572 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Wilson Amwayi Roge; Defendant: Priscillah Sulwe; Defendant: Catherine Jendeka; Defendant: Elphas Odero
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 398 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit dismissed.
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Succession of Estates, Beneficiary Rights, Land Registration, Eviction, Family Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Succession of Estates Beneficiary Rights Land Registration Eviction Family Land Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilson Amwayi Roge

Plaintiff

Priscillah Sulwe

Defendant

Catherine Jendeka

Defendant

Elphas Odero

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of Plot No. 34 Lumakanda Market as against the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the suit property was properly distributed through succession proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction orders, damages, and unremitted rent from the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit property, Plot No. 34 Lumakanda Market, remains registered in the name of the deceased, Johnson Boge, and was not included in the succession proceedings. The purported family agreement to allocate the property to the plaintiff was not representative of all beneficiaries and thus could not confer exclusive ownership or possession. The court held that the property should have been subjected to formal succession proceedings to resolve the competing claims of the beneficiaries. As such, the plaintiff failed to establish his claim to exclusive ownership or entitlement to eviction, damages, or rent, and the suit was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.