SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Wanyonyi Chekerie v Domiano Wanyonyi & 2 others [2016] KEELC 1096 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 1096 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1096
Citation
[2016] KEELC 1096 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramE. OBAGA
Holding

The plaintiff has failed to prove a case against the defendants on a balance of probabilities. His suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Facts

The plaintiff, Wanyonyi Chekerie, is the father of the first and second defendants, Domiano Wanyonyi and Francis Wanyonyi, and the grandfather of the third defendant, Victor Christopher. The suit land, West Pokot/Siyoi“A”/5329, was subdivided and a new title issued in the plaintiff's name for 2.54 hectares. The plaintiff alleges harassment by the defendants, who are sons and a grandson of the plaintiff, and seeks a declaration that he is the sole legal owner of the land and an injunction against them.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has proved a case against the defendants on a balance of probabilities.
  2. Whether the defendants are entitled to stay on the suit land as their only home.

Reasoning

The court found that the plaintiff's allegations of harassment were not supported by evidence. The defendants, being sons and a grandson of the plaintiff, are entitled to stay on the suit land as their only home, and the plaintiff's attempt to transfer part of the land to third parties to disinherit the defendants is not justifiable.

Outcome

Dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with costs to the defendants.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Esiroyo -vs- Esiroyo (1973) EA 388
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case