Erastus Mbuba Zakaria v Kinyua Nyaga Gatumu [2017] KEELC 2074 (KLR)

Facts

The Appellant filed a suit against the Respondent seeking a declaration that the Respondent was unlawfully occupying the Appellant's land, an order for the Respondent to vacate the land, mesne profits, damages, and costs. The Respondent had built a house on the Appellant's land and defaced the boundary.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent was a trespasser on the Appellant's land
2. Whether the Appellant failed to establish the actual boundary between the parcels of land
3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Appellant did not know where his land was situated
4. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Respondent did not uproot the boundary marks
5. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Respondent's evidence was inconsistent

Reasoning

The trial Magistrate's findings were not based on no evidence or misapprehension of the law. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate erred in law or fact. The successful party is entitled to costs unless the trial Court exercises its discretion unjudicially or on wrong principles.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Authorities cited