REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL SUIT NO. 74 OF 2003 GATIMU NDEGWA………………………………..…………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS MARITIM TESSOT & OTHERS……………….…..………..DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants claiming that they had since 1996 trespassed into his property known as MOLO SOUTH/IKUMBI/BLOCK 12/484 (Gacharage) and erected temporary structures thereon. He stated that he had made considerable effort through the local provincial administration to remove the defendants but only a few of them had moved out of his aforesaid property. All the named defendants were served with the court process and an affidavit of service to that effect was filed but they did not enter appearance or file any defence and consequently interlocutory judgment was entered against all the defendants on 25th August, 2003. The Plaintiff produced a title deed for his aforesaid property Exhibit 1 so as to prove that the suit property was truly his. He also produced two letters, Exhibits 2 and 3, which were from the area chief confirming that the defendants had made promises that they would move out of the property but they had failed to do so. The Plaintiff therefore prayed for eviction orders against the defendants, their agents, servants and all other people claiming their title under them. He also prayed for an injunction to restrain the same persons from entering or in any other manner interfering with his said property. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities and I enter judgment as prayed for together with costs and interests. DATED SIGNED & DELIVERED at Nakuru this 26th day of March, 2004. DANIEL K. MUSINGA AG. JUDGE 26/3/2004 Judgment delivered in open court in the presence of Mr. Thuo for the plaintiff. DANIEL K. MUSINGA AG. JUDGE 26/3/2004
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.