Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2015] KEELC 586 (KLR)

Tegat Tea Factory Co.Limited v Joshua Cheruiyot Sigei [2015] KEELC 586 (KLR)

Environment & Land Court
27 March 2015
MSMUNYAO SILA
728 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A registered Kenyan landowner can evict an occupant who offers no defence, winning possession, a permanent injunction and full costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a company, sued by plaint filed on 3rd March 2014 for eviction of the defendant from land parcel Molo South/Ikumbi Block 11/9 (Tachasis), measuring 28.48 hectares. The plaintiff purchased the land from Kiprono arap Chumo under an agreement dated 16th July 2012 for Kshs. 22,377,660/=, paid the purchase price and had the land transferred to it. On taking possession the plaintiff found the defendant occupying a portion of the land. The seller's farm workers and animals had been relocated, and the defendant was not among them. PW-2 described the defendant as a stranger, though PW-1's statement suggested he may have been on the land before the purchase but refused to relocate. The defendant was served with summons but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence or counterclaim, and did not attend the hearing; the plaintiff's evidence, given through two witnesses on 23rd March 2015, was therefore uncontroverted. The court found the plaintiff to be the current registered proprietor, vested under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act, Act No.3 of 2012 with all proprietary rights, including exclusive possession, and noted that nothing was pleaded or proved to show any interest of the defendant. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff: a declaration of proprietorship and that the defendant is a trespasser; an order that the defendant vacate within 7 days of service, failing which the plaintiff may apply formally for eviction at the defendant's cost; a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents or assigns from continued occupation; and costs to the plaintiff. Delivered at Kericho on 27th March 2015 by Munyao Sila J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an uncontroverted claim by a registered proprietor for eviction of an occupant with no pleaded or proved interest should succeed

Holding

The suit succeeds; the plaintiff is entitled to the prayers sought as the registered proprietor and the defendant has not demonstrated any right to remain on the land.

Reasoning

The defendant was served with summons and the hearing notice but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence or counterclaim. The plaintiff's two witnesses testified that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Kiprono arap Chumo, paid the purchase price and was transferred the land, and that the defendant is a stranger to them. Under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act, the rights of a proprietor, including exclusive possession, are protected subject only to encumbrances shown in the register and overriding interests under Section 28. No such interest was pleaded or proved.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered proprietor is vested with all proprietary rights, including the right of exclusive possession, under Section 25 of the Land Registration Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the land parcel Molo South/Ikumbi Block 11/9 (Tachasis) and that the defendant is a trespasser therein
  2. 2.The defendant ordered to vacate the land parcel Molo South/Ikumbi Block 11/9 (Tachasis) within 7 days of service of the judgment and/or decree, and in default the plaintiff at liberty to apply formally for an order of eviction, such eviction to be done at the defendant's cost
  3. 3.An order of permanent injunction issued restraining the defendant and/or his servants/agents/assigns from being in continued occupation of the land parcel Molo South/Ikumbi Block 11/9 (Tachasis)
  4. 4.The plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration Act, Act No.3 of 2012Section 25(1) and (2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (suit commenced by plaint filed on 3rd March, 2014)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tegat Tea Factory Co.Limited v Joshua Cheruiyot Sigei [2015] KEELC 586 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/586/eng@2015-03-27

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