Norah Umazi & 8 Others v Golden Sparrow Trading Ltd & Another

d) Costs of the suit together with Interest thereon. e) Any other order(s) the Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances. 2. The plaintiffs pleaded that at all material times they were living and in Physical occupation of the property known as L. R. 43800 (the suit property) prior to 2009. They pleaded that sometime in 2009 they were illegally evicted therefrom without any form of compensation. The plaintiffs also pleaded that their homes were demolished at the time of their eviction. 3. By a defence dated 06.09.2024 the defendants denied the plaintiffs’ claim in its entirety. They denied that the plaintiffs were at all times prior to 2009 living upon or occupying the suit property. It was pleaded that in a previous suit being Mombasa ELC 59 of 2009 (the previous suit) the Plaintiffs had, through their representatives, claimed to be squatters and sought compensation before vacating the suit property. 4. It was pleaded that all genuine occupants were identified through the local administration whereupon they were paid some money on humanitarian grounds for them to vacate. It was the defendants’ case that the persons who were in occupation departed upon receiving payment thereby allowing the Defendants to take possession. MOMBASA ELC CASE NO. E072 OF 2024 (JUDGMENT) Page 2

page 2 of 6

5. At the trial hereof, the plaintiffs called the 1st plaintiff, Norah Umazi, who testified on their behalf as the sole witness. She adopted her witness statement dated 15.04.2025 as her evidence in chief. The 2 nd defendant similarly called one witness, Wambui Maina, who was its Head of Legal Services to testify on its behalf. She adopted her witness statement dated 03.10.2024 as her evidence in chief and produced the documents in their list of documents as exhibits. 6. The court has considered the pleadings, evidence and documents on record. The court is of the view that the main question for determination herein is whether or not the plaintiffs have proved their claim against the defendants so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought. 7. It is evident from the evidence on record that the 1st defendant is the registered proprietor of the suit property whereas the 2 nd defendant is a lessee (for a 35 year term) from the 1 st defendant. According to the plaint the plaintiffs claimed to have been occupants of the suit property prior to 2009. The legal basis of their claim was however not pleaded in the plaint. The nature of their right or interest in the suit property was not clearly disclosed. MOMBASA ELC CASE NO. E072 OF 2024 (JUDGMENT) Page 3

page 3 of 6

8. The plaintiffs did not appear to assert any outright proprietary interest in the suit property but they mainly sought compensation for the houses which were allegedly demolished and the costs of relocation. At the trial hereof, PW1 testified that she had bought the portion of the suit property she was occupying but she tendered no evidence of such purchase. There was also no evidence of purchase on the part of the rest of the plaintiffs. 9. The plaintiffs also relied upon an alleged promise by the defendants to compensate them prior to their alleged eviction. There was, however, no credible evidence of such a promise and there was no demonstration that such a gratuitous promise would be legally binding or enforceable. 10. The defendants’ case was that prior to taking possession of the suit property the local administration identified the genuine squatters or occupiers of the land who were then paid some money on humanitarian grounds to compensate them for their structures and to enable them relocate. They produced a bundle of documents which listed the occupiers who were paid compensation in order to vacate. 11. It was the defendants’ case that since the plaintiffs’ names were not on the list of occupants as at 2009 then the plaintiffs were MOMBASA ELC CASE NO. E072 OF 2024 (JUDGMENT) Page 4

page 4 of 6

not in occupation at all in 2009. The plaintiffs contended that their names were wrongfully left out by the local chief and his team without any justification. However, the plaintiffs did not tender in evidence any letter of protest at the alleged omission by the chief and his team. There was no evidence to demonstrate that they escalated the alleged omission to higher authorities such as the District Officer or the District Commissioner. 12. The court has noted that the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence of their alleged farming activities or other economic activities on the suit property prior to 2009 or at all. They did not produce any photos or other evidence of their houses on the suit properties demolition. or even the resultant debris upon their There was no report to any police station on the alleged demolition. Overall, the court is far from satisfied that the plaintiffs have demonstrated the basis of their claim in law. They did not demonstrate any legal basis for their alleged occupation of the defendants’ land, or any basis for seeking compensation on the account of their alleged trespass. Most importantly, they did not demonstrate that they were in actual occupation of the suit property at any given time or that they were allegedly evicted therefrom. MOMBASA ELC CASE NO. E072 OF 2024 (JUDGMENT) Page 5

page 5 of 6

13. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court finds and holds that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate their claim against the defendants on a balance of probabilities. As a result, the plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants. It is so decided. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 Y. M. ANGIMA JUDGE In the presence of: No appearance for the Plaintiff Mr Michael Oloo for the Defendant Court Assistant: Hinga MOMBASA ELC CASE NO. E072 OF 2024 (JUDGMENT) Page 6

page 6 of 6