Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court dismissed the plaintiff's case and allowed the counterclaim, ruling that the 1st Defendant is the lawful owner of land parcel No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN by way of purchase. A permanent injunction was issued to restrain the plaintiffs from trespassing on this land, and the 1st Defendant was granted the right to enforce a legal eviction notice. The court also declared the 2nd Defendant's father acquired 68.62 hectares of L.R no 284/III/MN for valuable consideration, and the 2nd Defendant was properly registered as the owner of L.R 563/III/MN and its subdivisions. The plaintiffs failed to prove possession of the disputed land, and the court awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Issues
- The court assessed whether the plaintiffs proved adverse possession of the land. It found insufficient evidence of occupation, noting plaintiffs failed to demonstrate possession as required by law, including the absence of testimony from most claimants. The court cited precedents like Solomon Muathe Mitau v Nguni Group Ranch [2017] eKLR to support its dismissal of the plaintiffs' case.
- The court determined whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, considering the conditions outlined in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants argued they would lose their homes if the stay was not granted, while the respondents contended the applicants encroached on the land after an injunction, negating adverse possession claims. The court concluded the applicants' entry was forcible, leaving nothing to preserve for the appeal.
Holdings
- Eviction order issued to evict plaintiffs, their assigns, or beneficiaries from portions of land resulting from subdivisions of L.R 563/III/MN.
- Notice of eviction issued by the 1st defendant declared legal, valid, and proper, allowing enforcement in accordance with the law.
- A declaration that the 1st Defendant is the lawful owner of land parcel No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN by way of transfer out of purchase and is entitled to vacant possession.
- Permanent injunction issued restraining plaintiffs from encroaching on any portion of land resulting from subdivisions of L.R 563/III/MN.
- Declaration that the 2nd defendant's father acquired 68.62 hectares of L.R no 284/III/MN for valuable consideration, and the 2nd defendant was properly registered as the owner of L.R 563/III/MN and its subdivisions.
- Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the 1st and 2nd defendants/counter-claimants.
- A permanent injunction issued restraining plaintiffs, their servants, or those claiming under them from trespassing, entering, or remaining on land parcel No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN.
Remedies
- A permanent injunction was issued to restrain the plaintiffs, their servants, or those claiming under them from trespassing, entering, or remaining on land parcel No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN.
- A declaration was issued affirming that the 1st Defendant is the lawful owner of all that parcel of land known as No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN by way of transfer out of purchase and is entitled to vacant possession.
- An order of eviction was issued against the plaintiffs to evict in accordance with the law any of the plaintiffs' defendants to the counterclaim and their assignee and beneficiaries from any portion of land being a resultant subdivision of L.R 563/III/MN.
- The court awarded the costs of the suit and the counterclaim to the 1st and 2nd defendants/counter-claimants.
- A permanent injunction was issued restraining the plaintiffs by themselves, their agents assigns or anybody else from encroaching, entering into any portion of land being a resultant subdivision of L.R 563/III/MN.
Legal Principles
- The court applied Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules to assess the stay of execution pending appeal, requiring the applicant to demonstrate substantial loss if the stay is denied and to provide security for the judgment.
- The court found that the applicants failed to establish adverse possession of the disputed land, as they did not meet the legal requirements for uninterrupted possession or demonstrate animus possidendi (intention to possess).
Precedent Name
- Solomon Muathe Mitau v Nguni Group Ranch
- Zacharia Okoth Obado vs Edward Akongo Oyugi & 2 Others
- Chevron Kenya Ltd Case
- RWW v EKW
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
E. K. Makori
Passage Text
- A permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the plaintiffs, their servants, or those claiming under them from trespassing, entering, or remaining on land parcel No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN.
- A declaration does and is hereby issued that the 1st Defendant is the lawful owner of all that parcel of land known as No CR 35955/3 LR No 4379/111/MN by way of transfer out of purchase and is entitled to vacant possession.
- Application dated 12th of May 2023 is hereby dismissed with costs. However, this court will be inclined to grant a further 30 days stay from today for the applicants to approach the Court of Appeal for either a stay pending appeal or any other further orders.