[2018] KEELC 3025 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit land through documentary evidence, including a title deed and certificate of official search. The Defendant failed to contest the claim or participate in the proceedings. Under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, the Plaintiff's title was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3025 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wilson Daniel Ogola; Defendant: Mourice Ouma Agwedo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 32 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Plaintiff.
- Judges
- TM Olando
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership, Trespass, Injunctions, 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
Wilson Daniel Ogola
Plaintiff
Mourice Ouma Agwedo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the legal owner of land parcel Kisumu/Kogony/5656.
- 2 Whether the Defendant has any legal rights to use or occupy the said land.
- 3 Who is liable to pay the costs of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had proved ownership of the suit land through documentary evidence, including a title deed and certificate of official search. The Defendant failed to contest the claim or participate in the proceedings. Under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, the Plaintiff's title was deemed absolute and indefeasible. The Defendant's actions of ploughing and depositing building materials on the land without consent constituted trespass. The Plaintiff was therefore entitled to orders for eviction, permanent injunction, and costs. The absence of any defence or challenge to the Plaintiff's evidence further strengthened the Plaintiff's case, leading the court to...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Orders
- The Defendant to vacate Kisumu/Kogony/5656 within ninety (90) days from service of the order, failing which eviction to issue.
- Upon vacant possession or eviction, the Defendant is permanently restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff’s use of the land.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KISUMU
ELC. CASE NO. 32 OF 2016
WILSON DANIEL OGOLA....................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOURICE OUMA AGWEDO..........................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. Wilson Daniel Ogola, the Plaintiff, filed this suit against Mourice Ouma Agwedo, the Defendant, through the plaint filed on the 28th February 2016 seeking for an order stopping him from interfering with land parcel Kisumu/Kogony/5656 and costs. He avers that he is the registered proprietor of the said land measuring 0. 11 hectares. That the Defendant has trespassed onto the land, ploughed and deposited construction materials without his consent or authority. The Plaintiff testified as PW1. He produced a copy of the title deed, certificate of official search and certified copy of Kisumu CM C.C. No. 487 of 2011 as exhibit and prayed for injunction, eviction and costs.
2. The Defendant was served with the suit papers but did not enter appearance, file defence or participate in the hearing in any way.
3. The issues for determination are as follows;
a) Whether the Plaintiff is the legal owner of land parcel Kisumu/Kogony/5656.
b) Whether the Defendant has any legal rights to use or occupy the said land.
c) Who pays the costs.
4. The Court has carefully considered the pleadings filed, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and come to the following conclusions.
a) That the copy of the title deed dated 30th April 2013 and certificate of official search for Kisumu/Kogony/5656, the suit land, produced by the Plaintiff as exhibits 1 and 2 respectively, confirms the Plaintiff’s claim that the said land is registered in his name.
b) That in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012, the Court takes the Plaintiff as the absolute and indefeasible owner of the said land. There is no evidence of any challenge to his title to the suit land.
c) That as the registered proprietor of the suit land, the Plaintiff is entitled to the rights and privileges of a registered proprietor which he cannot fully enjoy when the Defendant ploughs and or places building materials on the land without the Plaintiff’s consent and authority.
d) That as the Defendant did not challenge or controvert the Plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence that he has trespassed onto the land and committed the acts of trespass as pleaded, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has proved his case in accordance with the law.
5. The Court therefore enters Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms;
a) That the Defendant do vacate from the Plaintiff’s land, Kisumu/Kogony/5656, in ninety (90) days from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him, and in default eviction order to issue.
b) That upon the Defendant giving the Plaintiff vacant possession or being evicted, he be permanently restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff’s use of the said land.
c) The Defendant do pay the Plaintiff costs of this suit.
Orders accordingly.
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND
JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2018
In the presence of:
Plaintiff Present
Defendant Absent
Counsel N/A
S.M. KIBUNJA
ENVIRONMENT & LAND
JUDGE