Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedE.L.C. Suit No. 1024 of 2007· [2017] KEELC 917 (KLR)

John Richard Githere & another v Wamunyoro Investments Ltd & another [2017] KEELC 917 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 November 2017
KBK. BOR
875 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi land court confirmed that registered landowners can win permanent injunctions, demolition of trespassers' buildings, and damages when their title is unchallenged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, John Richard Githere (registered proprietor of L.R. No. 209/10304) and Blueline Construction Company Ltd (owner of L.R. No. 209/10303), sued the Defendants seeking temporary and permanent injunctions, general and exemplary damages for trespass, and an order for demolition of structures erected on the Suit Properties. They claimed that in April 2003 the Defendants unlawfully entered the two-and-a-half-acre parcels in Nairobi and started constructing buildings without authority. The Defendants, though initially represented by Moses N. Siagi and Company Advocates, did not enter appearance or file a defence after counsel ceased acting, and did not attend the hearing. The 1st Plaintiff testified, adopting his witness statement and producing titles showing the properties were leased to the Plaintiffs for 99 years from 1/11/1983, an injunction order issued on 22/9/2003, letters of complaint to state officials, and rate payment slips. The court framed two issues: whether the Plaintiffs proved their case and whether the reliefs sought should be granted. Finding the Plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted, the court held that the Defendants invaded the Suit Properties and erected structures without justifiable cause, denying the Plaintiffs possession and quiet enjoyment. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs with a permanent injunction, an order for demolition and removal of structures, general damages of Kshs. 100,000/=, and costs of the suit. Exemplary damages as sought in the plaint were not granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of trespass against registered proprietors

Holding

The Plaintiffs proved their case on a balance of probability; as registered proprietors they were entitled to possession and quiet enjoyment, and the Defendants' entry and construction was without justifiable cause

Reasoning

The 1st Plaintiff testified and produced titles showing the Suit Properties were leased to the Plaintiffs for 99 years from 1/11/1983. The Defendants, though served, did not enter appearance or file a defence and did not attend the hearing, leaving the Plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted. The court found the Defendants invaded the Suit Properties and put up structures, denying the Plaintiffs possession and quiet enjoyment without justifiable cause, warranting the reliefs claimed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A registered proprietor whose title is uncontroverted and who proves trespass is entitled to a permanent injunction, demolition of structures erected by the trespasser, and general damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from trespassing onto the Plaintiffs' land or in any manner interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the Suit Properties
  2. 2.An order directing the Defendants to demolish and remove all the buildings and other structures they have erected on the Suit Properties
  3. 3.General damages of Kshs. 100,000/= awarded to the Plaintiffs
  4. 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Titles Act
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 Richard Githere & another v Wamunyoro Investments Ltd & another [2017] KEELC 917 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). E.L.C. Suit No. 1024 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/917/eng@2017-11-20

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