[2010] KEHC 901 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 901 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land, LR No. Kakamega/Lumakanda/4353. The defendant, having been served with summons, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and did not challenge the plaintiff's evidence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 901 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zakaria Monyo; Defendant: Wycliffe Lukhayo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 97 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof; Interlocutory Judgment Previously Entered Due to Non Appearance
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit allowed; eviction order granted against defendant; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Trespass to Land, Registered Proprietorship
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Trespass to Land Registered Proprietorship

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

Zakaria Monyo

Plaintiff

Wycliffe Lukhayo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment After Formal Proof; Interlocutory Judgment Previously Entered Due to Non Appearance

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of LR No. Kakamega/Lumakanda/4353.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has trespassed onto the plaintiff's land without any color of right.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order against the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land, LR No. Kakamega/Lumakanda/4353. The defendant, having been served with summons, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and did not challenge the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff's title was produced in court and not controverted. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to exclusive possession of the land and that the continued occupation by the defendant amounted to trespass. Consequently, the court granted the eviction order sought by the plaintiff and awarded him the costs of the suit.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit allowed; eviction order granted against defendant; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • An order of eviction to issue against the defendant, his servants or anybody working with his authority on parcel no. Kakamega/Lumakanda/4353.
  • The plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit.