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

Tirus Karuga Githaka & another v David Shimekha Mwashi & 3 others [2021] KEELC 3472 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3472 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
3472
Citation
[2021] KEELC 3472 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLand CasePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramPresiding Judge
The Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs, declaring them entitled to the exclusive and unimpeded right of possession and occupation of the six acres of land.

Facts

The Plaintiffs claim to have purchased six acres of land from the 1st Defendant in March 2010 for Kshs 450,000. However, the 1st Defendant allegedly sold ten acres to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, and the Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of their rights and orders to recover the land.

Issues

  • Ownership of the six acres of land
  • Validity of the sale agreement

Reasoning

The Court considers the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, and finds that the Plaintiffs have a valid claim to the land based on the Sale Agreement dated 15th March 2010.

Outcome

In favor of the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the exclusive and unimpeded right of possession and occupation of six acres of land
  • An order compelling the 4th Defendant to remove the entries relating to the sub-division of the property
  • A Vesting Order vesting all the property in LR No. Lamu/Hindi Magogoni/518 in favor of the Plaintiffs
  • An order of injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants from remaining in or continuing with their occupation of the property

Remedies

  • Declaration of rights
  • Compulsory removal of sub-division entries
  • Vesting of property
  • Injunction
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case