Odira v Ouko & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 121 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 18508 (KLR) (16 March 2023) (Judgment)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 18508
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 18508 (KLR)
- Decided
- 16 March 2023
Summary at a glance
TypeLand SuitPostureOriginal TrialCoramLC KOMINGOI
The Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the structures are illegal, no proprietary right over the road reserve, and an order to demolish the structures. The Defendants are directed to vacate the road reserve within 60 days, and the costs of the suit are to be borne by the Defendants.
Facts
Willy Odira filed a suit against Joel Ouko, Moses Nyankuru Bosire, and Francis Mogaka, claiming they illegally erected structures on a road reserve leading to his property, limiting his access. The Commissioner of Lands had written letters to resolve the issue but no action was taken.
Issues
- Whether the Defendants have erected illegal developments on the road reserve leading to the Plaintiff's property.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.
- Who should bear the costs of the suit.
Reasoning
The Plaintiff proved ownership and the developments around the road reserve, while the Defendants failed to justify the developments. The 4th Defendant did not justify compliance with the Physical and Land Use Planning Act.
Outcome
For the Plaintiff
Orders
- A declaration that the shanties and structures erected on the road reserve are illegal.
- A declaration that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants have no proprietary right over the said road reserve.
- An order of mandatory injunction directing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants to demolish the structures.
- A direction to vacate the road reserve within 60 days.
- Costs of the suit to be borne by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants.
Remedies
- Declaration of illegal structures.
- Declaration of no proprietary right.
- Mandatory injunction to demolish structures.
- Eviction within 60 days.
- Bearing of costs by Defendants.
Authorities cited
⚠ 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.
Loading judgment…