Gachunga Githagui v Mary Gathiri, Karuri Gathiri & Njenga Gathiri [2013] KEHC 5478 (KLR)

REPUBLIC  OF  KENYA

IN THE  HIGH  COURT  OF   KENYA  AT  NAKURU

E.L.C   280  OF   2012

GACHUNGA  GITHAGUI………………......……….PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MARY  GATHIRI ……………………..………1ST DEFENDANT

KARURI GATHIRI………………………….. 2ND DEFENDANT

NJENGA GATHIRI………………….………..3RD DEFENDANT

JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff Gachunga Githagui filed  a plaint  against the defendants, Mary Gathiri, Karuri Gathiri  and  Njenga Gathiri. The plaintiff is seeking the following orders:

A permanent injunction restraining the  defendants, their employees, servants or  agents from entering, occupying, working, disposing, alienating, or in  any  other  manner  interfering with the  plaintiff’s quiet  use and  occupation of land parcel number  Nyandarua/Tuluga/441 ( here after  referred  to as the  suit land)

That the  Defendants  jointly and  severally  be  declared  to  be  trespassers  to the  suit land  and  be  ordered  to  deliver vacant possession  and or in default be forcibly evicted.

That the OCS Kinangop police station be  ordered to  enforce  the  orders  given.

The Defendants be condemned   to  pay  costs of the suit.

Simultaneously with the plaint the applicant (plaintiff) brought a  notice  of  motion of  even date seeking  among other orders,  a temporary  injunction to restrain the  Defendants, their  employees, servants  or  agents  from entering, occupying, working, disposing, alienating, or  in  any  other  manner  interfering with the  plaintiff’s  quiet  use and  occupation  of the suit land.

On 30th  May, 2012 this  court  certified  the  plaintiff's  application as  urgent  and granted  a temporary  injunction to restrain the  defendants their  employees, servants  or  agents  from entering, occupying, working, disposing, alienating, or  in  any  other  manner  interfering with the  plaintiff quiet  use and  occupation  of  the  suit land. This injunction was confirmed on 19th July 2012 after establishing  that the  Defendants were  duly served.

On 27th July, 2011 judgment was  entered  against   the  Defendants  after they  failed to  enter appearance  and the  matter  set down  for  formal  proof.

On 19th  March  2013 when the matter came  up  for  hearing, the  plaintiff gave oral  evidence  and  produced the following  documents  among   others:

An  original  title  deed  in his  name  issued  on 4th  October  2012.

An  original  official  search dated 4/10/2012.

A  Misc. Application filed  in  Naivasha Principle   Magistrate's  court  seeking  the removal of the   restriction  placed  on the suit  land.

An order   dated 9th   May 2012 removing the caution.

A  demand letter  from   Njihia Njoroge & Company   advocates  dated 10th  May 2012 asking   defendants  to  vacate  the suit land.

During  the hearing of  the case, the  plaintiff testified  and called  one  witness. The  plaintiff  (PW1)  testified  that he  was the registered  owner of  the suit land but  had  been residing in Nairobi while his son,  Mungai took charge of  the suit  property. His son had leased out the  property to  the defendants to  cultivate but passed  on  in 2008 while the defendants were still on the suit  land. After the death of his son, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit land but they refused. He later found out that one of them, Mary Gathiri  Gachunga  had placed   a caution on the suit land leaving him with  no choice but  to file an application in  Naivasha to apply for removal of the caution. An order to remove the caution was granted on 9th May 2012: That the plaintiff then filed this suit seeking  the  court's  intervention to  stop  the  defendants  from  further   trespass  and  in default order for their eviction from the suit land.

Pw2  Winnie  Gachunga  testified  that  she  was  a  daughter of the plaintiff  and lived  with  him at  Engineer  in  South  Kinangop in a rented  house where she took care of him as he was sick and Elderly.  She   reiterated  that  her   elder brother Erastus Gichagui Gachunga  had leased the suit land  to the defendants  but  when  he died  and  her  father   demanded they vacate  the suit land the defendants  refused  and  placed  a caution  on  the suit  land which was  later  removed  by  court.

The plaintiff claims that he is   the   registered owner of the suit   property. He has produced a title   deed and a certificate of official search to support this position. This is uncontroverted as the Defendants did not enter  appearance.

I have considered the pleadings filed and the evidence adduced by the  plaintiff in support of his case. The rights of the plaintiff in the instant case are protected under sections 27and 28 of the Registered land Act( now repealed) Cap 300 which state as follows:

section  27(a):

'' the registration of a person as the proprietor of land shall vest in that person the absolute ownership of that land together with all rights and privileges belonging or appurtenant thereto……………

28. The rights of a proprietor, whether acquired on first registration or whether acquired subsequently for valuable consideration or by an order of court, shall not be liable to be defeated except as provided in this Act, and shall be held by the proprietor, together with all privileges and appurtenances belonging thereto, free from all other interests and claims whatsoever, but subject -

(a) to the leases, charges and other encumbrances and to the conditions and restrictions, if any, shown in the register; and

(b) unless the contrary is expressed in the register, to such liabilities, rights and interests as affect the same and are declared by section 30 not to require noting on the register''

After considering both the oral and documentary evidence adduced herein and applying the law I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case to the required standard. In the premises judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as follows:

A permanent  injunction  restraining  the  defendants, their  employees, servants  or  agents  from entering, occupying, working, disposing, alienating, or  in  any  other  manner  interfering with the  plaintiff  quit  use and  occupation  of  land  parcel  number  Nyandarua/Tuluga/441 is issued

The Defendants do vacate forthwith the suit land within 30 days failure of which the Defendants be   evicted.

That the OCS Kinangop police station is ordered  to  enforce  the  orders.

I will not grant any costs since the defendants  did  not  enter appearance.

Dated,  signed  and  delivered  in  open  court at  Nakuru  this 12th  day of  July  2013.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr  Ngure  holding  brief  for   Mr  Njihia  for  Plaintiff

N/A  for   Defendants

Stephen  Mwangi : Court  Clerk.