Nathaniel Oruma v County Government of Kajado & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4267 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court confirmed a landowner's title in Kajiado, permanently restraining the county government and two individuals from trespassing or claiming his plot.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff proved ownership of the suit land
The court found the Plaintiff is the legal proprietor, his evidence of purchase from Siyieyio Moyionko, the letter of allotment and the 1st Defendant's own committee decision being uncontroverted.
It was not disputed that the Plaintiff purchased the suit land from Siyieyio Moyionko for Kshs 400,000 and that the vendor was allotted the land by the defunct Ol Kejuado County Council as evidenced by a letter of allotment. The 1st Defendant's letter of 2nd September 2014 confirmed the Plaintiff as bona fide allottee after investigation. Relying on ss 34 and 35 of the Land Registration Act and uncontroverted evidence, the court found for the Plaintiff.
Whether the Defendants interfered with quiet possession and should be permanently restrained
The court found the Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff's quiet possession and issued a permanent injunction restraining them from trespassing, laying claim or interfering with the property.
Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right to property and protects against arbitrary deprivation. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to adduce evidence to controvert the interference allegations, and the 1st Defendant, despite approving building plans, instructed the Plaintiff to stop construction. Guided by Ahmed Ibrahim Suleiman and Willy Kipsongok Morogo, the court held the Plaintiff entitled to protection and an injunction.
Effect of a defendant's failure to adduce evidence
Uncontroverted defence assertions remain mere allegations; the plaintiff's evidence must be relied upon, and the claim was proved on a balance of probability.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants never filed defences and the 1st Defendant filed its defence after interlocutory judgment had been entered, without adducing evidence at trial. Applying Janet Kaphiphe Ouma v Marie Stopes International and sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, the court held that the Plaintiff's evidence stood uncontroverted and the defence remained mere allegations.
Legal principles established
#- A party who asserts a claim must support it with evidence; uncontroverted evidence stands unchallenged, applying ss 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act.
- A registered proprietor of land is entitled to the protection of the law under the Land Registration Act.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that as against the defendants, the plaintiff is the owner of plot No. 1945/Business – IL Bissil T. Centre.
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants jointly and severally from trespassing, laying claim and or interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet possession of plot No. 1945/Business – IL Bissil T. Centre.
- 3.The costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.
- 4.Interest on costs at court rates.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (suit concerning ownership of land)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nathaniel Oruma v County Government of Kajado & 2 others [2018] KEELC 4267 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Case No. 385 of 2017 (Formerly Machakos ELC No. 223 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4267/eng@2018-02-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.