EUSTACE MUCHUNU MURIUKI & JOYCE WANGUI MUCHUNU v MOSES KIMANI NDUNGU [2009] KEHC 3293 (KLR) | Land Allocation | Esheria

EUSTACE MUCHUNU MURIUKI & JOYCE WANGUI MUCHUNU v MOSES KIMANI NDUNGU [2009] KEHC 3293 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

Civil Suit 207 of 2008

EUSTACE MUCHUNU MURIUKI….………...1ST PLAINTIFF

JOYCE WANGUI MUCHUNU……………….2ND PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MOSES KIMANI NDUNGU……….…………....DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs claim in their plaint that pursuant to their application in July 2006, to the Department of Land Adjudication and Settlement in the Ministry of Lands for allocation of an agricultural land in Nyandarwa District, they were on 6th December 2006 allocated Title No. Nyandarwa/ Kirima/ 497, (the suit piece of land). Upon payment of the stand premium of Kshs. 158,500/= he was issued with a certificate of outright purchase and subsequently a title deed. In August 2007 the defendant and his family trespassed on the land and erected illegal structures on it. Despite demand the defendant has refused to vacate. He therefore prays for an eviction order and a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant by himself, his servants and or agents, family members or anybody claiming under him, having been evicted, from going back. He also prays for the costs of this suit.

Though served, the defendant never entered appearance or filed a defence and on the plaintiff’s application, interlocutory judgment has been entered against him.

In the formal proof the first plaintiff testified on his own behalf and on behalf of the second defendant that at the time of allocation the piece of land was vacant. The defendant trespassed on the land in 2007 and has ignored demands for him to vacate. He produced as exhibits copies of the letter of outright purchase, the title deed and the demand sent to the defendant.

The defendant having ignored the summons to enter appearance the plaintiffs’ claim stands unchallenged. Having perused the exhibits produced and considered the uncontroverted testimony of the first plaifntiff, I am satisfied that the defendant and his family are trespassers on the suit piece of land. As the registered proprietors, the plaintiffs are entitled to its quiet possession and enjoyment. Consequently I enter judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.

DATED and delivered this 8th day of May, 2009.

D.K. MARAGA

JUDGE.