Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Suit No. 183 of 2017· [2018] KEELC 2222 (KLR)

Kapkoros Tea Factory Co. Ltd v Leonard Biwott & 13 others [2018] KEELC 2222 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 July 2018
MKMohammed Noor Kullow
645 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 Kenyan court ordered 14 people off company-owned land, ruling that registered title deeds and an unanswered lawsuit are enough to win a trespass case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Kapkoros Tea Factory Co. Ltd, sued fourteen defendants seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from invading, trespassing, grazing, cultivating or interfering with its quiet possession of land parcels LR CIS MARA/NKOBEN/2002 and 2003, together with costs and interest. The Plaintiff alleged that it was the beneficial owner and proprietor of the parcels, used for tea farming and tree growing, and that in September 2016 the defendants entered with herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, grazed the land, constructed temporary structures with a view to claiming ownership, destroyed the perimeter wall and consumed artificial pastures, depriving it of the use of the land. Though served with summons, the defendants did not enter appearance or file a defence. At the hearing, Justus Yegon, a director of the Plaintiff, testified and produced title deeds for both parcels and certificates of search confirming registration in the Plaintiff's name. The court held that, the defendants having failed to file a defence, the Plaintiff's evidence stood unchallenged and uncontroverted, and that the Plaintiff had proved its case on a balance of probability. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff: a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession and use of the two parcels; an order that the defendants vacate voluntarily within 45 days of the judgment, failing which they would be evicted in conformity with section 152(a)(b) of the Land Act; and costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff. Judgment was delivered in open court at Narok on 26 July 2018 by Mohammed Noor Kullow J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of ownership and trespass

Holding

The Plaintiff, being the registered proprietor with title deeds and certificates of search, proved its case on a balance of probability against unchallenged evidence

Reasoning

The Plaintiff's director testified and produced title deeds for both parcels together with certificates of search confirming registration in the Plaintiff's name. The Defendants were served but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, leaving the Plaintiff's evidence unchallenged. The court therefore accepted the claim of beneficial ownership and trespass and granted the injunction and eviction orders sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a defendant fails to enter appearance or file a defence, the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence may prove the case on a balance of probability

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants and agents from invading, trespassing, grazing, cultivating or interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession and use of LR No. CIS MARA/NKOBEN/2002 and CIS MARA/NKOBEN/2003
  2. 2.The Defendants to move out of the said parcels of land voluntarily within 45 days from the date of judgment, in default they be evicted in conformity with section 152(a)(b) of the Land Act
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Actsection 152(a)(b)
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes (Environment and Land Court Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kapkoros Tea Factory Co. Ltd v Leonard Biwott & 13 others [2018] KEELC 2222 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Suit No. 183 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2222/eng@2018-07-26

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