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. 62 of 2015· [2016] KEELC 335 (KLR)

John Kipkeu Kirop & 2 others v Mike Kipkemoi Kirop [2016] KEELC 335 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 November 2016
EOE. Obaga
407 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

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kitale ordered a man who bought land from one family member without the family's consent to vacate and demolish his building within one month.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The three plaintiffs, grandsons of the deceased Chelanga Barsiror Koriet and administrators of his estate under a limited grant issued on 17/3/2016, sued the defendant for eviction from unregistered land at Toroko Centre, Kapkondot sub-location in Elgeyo Marakwet County, purchased by the deceased on 23/10/1977 before his death on 15/6/1979. The defendant, though duly served, neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, and the suit proceeded by way of formal proof. The plaintiffs testified that in 2013 the mother of the third plaintiff sold a quarter acre of the deceased's land to the defendant without consultation with the family, and that the defendant thereafter erected a six-roomed commercial building on the suitland despite being asked to stop. The court found the plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted, noted the absence of contention that the deceased owned the suitland, and held that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities. The court ordered the eviction of the defendant, giving him one month to voluntarily demolish the building, failing which he would be forcefully evicted and the building demolished, and awarded costs of the suit to the plaintiffs. Judgment was dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on 2 November 2016 by E. Obaga J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of ownership of unregistered land and entitlement to eviction

Holding

Plaintiffs proved on a balance of probabilities that the deceased owned the suitland and the defendant, having purchased a quarter acre without consultation of the deceased's family, was liable to eviction

Reasoning

The suit proceeded by formal proof after the defendant, though served, neither entered appearance nor filed a defence. The plaintiffs produced a limited grant of letters of administration and evidence that the deceased purchased the land on 23/10/1977 and died on 15/6/1979. A photograph showed the completed six-roomed commercial building. The defendant's purchase from the third plaintiff's mother was made without consultation of the family, and the plaintiffs' evidence was uncontroverted.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Order directing eviction of the defendant from the suitland
    2. 2.Defendant given one month to voluntarily demolish the building, failing which he be forcefully evicted and the building demolished
    3. 3.Defendant to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiffs
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over disputes relating to land (Environment and Land Court Act)

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "John Kipkeu Kirop & 2 others v Mike Kipkemoi Kirop [2016] KEELC 335 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Land Case No. 62 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/335/eng@2016-11-02

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