Andrew Mutava v Mutua Nthuka, Christopher Kisilu, Musembi Muindi, Nyamai Manga’o, Ndunge Amu & Agnes Muli [2018] KEELC 3415 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT   AND LAND  COURT AT MAKUENI

ELC SUIT NO. 68 OF 2017

ANDREW MUTAVA...............................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MUTUA  NTHUKA......................................................................1ST DEFENDANT

CHRISTOPHER  KISILU.........................................................2ND  DEFENDANT

MUSEMBI  MUINDI.................................................................3RD  DEFENDANT

NYAMAI  MANGA’O.................................................................4TH DEFENDANT

NDUNGE  AMU.........................................................................5TH  DEFENDANT

AGNES MULI.............................................................................6TH DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

1.  By  his plaint  dated  7th  May, 2017 the  plaintiff  prays for judgment against  the defendants  for;

I. An order ofinjunction  restraining   the defendants or their agents from entering   on the said land parcel No. Makueni/Kai “A”/703 until  the suit  is heard and determined.

II. An order  that status  quo  be maintained until the matter is heard  and determined.

III. An  order   that the defendants restrained  from further  construction and/or doing   business in the said plot.

IV. General damages for selling a portion of the aforesaid plot.

V. Costs of this suit

VI. Any other   relief  the court  may fit to grant

2. The defendants did not enter appearance and nor did  they file their defence  after being served with summons. Consequently, the court directed that this matter proceeds as an undefended suit.

3. When  the matter   came up  for hearing   on the  22nd  January, 2018 , the plaintiff  adopted his statement which he recorded and signed on the 7th  April, 2017 as his evidence.

4. His evidence is that he is the registered owner of land parcel number Makueni/Kai “A” /703. He  produced  a copy of the title deed  for the said as PEX No. 2.  He  went  on to produce  copies   of demand   letters  that he issued to the  defendants as PEX  Nos. 2(a) to (f) respectively.

5. The  plaintiff said that the late Peter Kituu who is his nephew secretly sold a portion  of his  land  to the  defendants without   his knowledge.

6. In his  submissions, the plaintiff’s counsel  cited  section 26(1) of the Land  Registration  Act  number  3 of 2012  which  provides  that as follows;

The  certificate  of title  issued  by the Registrar   upon registration, or to a purchaser of land upon  a transfer  or transmission  by the proprietor    shall   be taken by all courts  as prima facie evidence of  that  person named  as proprietor  of  the land  is the absolute   and indefeasible owner, subject   to the encumbrances, easements,  restrictions   and conditions contained or endorsed  in the certificate, and  the  title  of that  proprietor   shall   not   be subject  to challenge, except:-

a. On  the ground  of fraud  or misrepresentation  to which   the person is proved to be a party; or

b. Where   the certificate  of title has been acquired illegally, procedurally or  through  corrupt  scheme.

7. The  counsel submitted that on the face of it, it is only the plaintiff who can be said to own the suit land parcel and invited the court to grant the orders sought. The counsel is silent on the issues of damages. It will also be noted  that the defendant did not  adduce any evidence which the court can  rely on in determining   what damages, if any, that  the plaintiff is to be awarded. In my judgment , I shall not make any award  for damages.

8. Prayers (i) and (ii) of the  plaint  cannot be granted either as those  prayers became spent  upon  the issuance of temporary  order of injunction on 10/4/2017.

9. There was no evidence  of the  defendants having constructed  on the suit land and as such prayers (iii) cannot  be granted.

10. Arising  from the foregoing, I am persuaded  that the plaintiff is the registered  proprietor  of land parcel Makueni/Kai “A”/703. In the  circumstances  I hereby proceed to issue a declaratory  order under prayer (vi)  of the plaint.  There shall be costs of the suit in favour  of the plaintiff.

Signed, dated  and delivered at Makueni  on this 24th day of April, 2018.

MBOGO C.G

JUDGE

In the  presence of;

No appearance   for the plaintiff

Mr.Kwemboi Court Assistant

MBOGO C.G, JUDGE

24/4/2018