Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedLand Case No. 122 of 2013· [2014] KEELC 293 (KLR)

Charles Khisa Ngengwe & 2 others (Suing as Representatives of Ndelema Self Help Group) v Simon Wachie & 6 others [2014] KEELC 293 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 July 2014
EOE. Obaga
449 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kitale court permanently barred former members of a self-help group from interfering with its land because they never contributed to buying it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, chairman, secretary and treasurer of Ndelema Self Help Group, sued seven former members of the group seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the running of the group and its land, LR No. 8994/11 (Kaptich Farm), which the group had purchased to settle its members. The defendants, though duly served with summons to enter appearance, neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, and the plaintiffs proceeded by way of formal proof. In uncontroverted testimony, the group's chairman testified that the group was formed to purchase land for its members, that it bought the suit property, and that the defendants, being former members who never contributed towards the purchase of the land, invaded the farm, purported to impose themselves as officials, and engaged in destructive activities including damaging members' houses. He produced the group's certificate of registration and a notice of motion dated 17/6/2014 containing a petition against the Agricultural Finance Corporation that detailed how the group acquired the property. The court found the plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted and held that they had proved their case against the defendants on a balance of probabilities. The claim was allowed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of the plaint, granting the permanent injunction sought. Judgment was delivered at Kitale on 30 July 2014 by E. Obaga J, in the absence of the plaintiffs' advocate who was aware of the hearing date. No costs order was recorded in the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiffs proved their claim against the defendants on a balance of probabilities

Holding

The plaintiffs proved their case on a balance of probabilities and were granted the reliefs sought in prayers (a) to (c) of the plaint.

Reasoning

The defendants were duly served with summons to enter appearance but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, so the plaintiffs proceeded by formal proof. The uncontroverted evidence of the group's chairman, supported by the certificate of registration of the group and a petition against the Agricultural Finance Corporation showing how the group acquired LR No. 8994/11, established that the defendants are former members who never contributed to the purchase of the land and should not interfere with the group's affairs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Former members of a self-help group who did not contribute to the purchase of its land should not be allowed to meddle with the affairs of the group including its land.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' claim is allowed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of the plaint, including a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the running of the group and its Land Parcel No. 8994/11 Kaptich Farm
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over disputes concerning land (original first-instance suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles Khisa Ngengwe & 2 others (Suing as Representatives of Ndelema Self Help Group) v Simon Wachie & 6 others [2014] KEELC 293 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Land Case No. 122 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/293/eng@2014-07-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.