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

Gitau v Board of Management Uhuru Primary School (Environment & Land Case 582 of 2013) [2023] KEELC 20185 (KLR) (27 September 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEELC 20185 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
20185
Citation
[2023] KEELC 20185 (KLR)
Decided
27 September 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramLA OMOLLO
Holding

The suit and counterclaim are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Peter Njunga Gitau, claimed ownership of land parcel LR 22026, Grant No IR 77995, adjacent to the Defendant, Uhuru Primary School. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's actions constituted trespass and denied him the right to use the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant trespassed onto LR 22026 grant No I.R 77995.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff should be granted the orders sought in the Plaint.
  3. Whether the Defendant should be granted orders sought in its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.
  4. Who should bear the costs of this suit.

Reasoning

The Regional Surveyor's report established that the Plaintiff's property was planned within the Defendant's larger parcel of land, LR No 7385/2. The Court found that both parties failed to prove their claims of trespass or encroachment.

Outcome

Dismissal of the suit and counterclaim with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The suit and counterclaim are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Land Registration Act
  • Trespass Act, Cap 294
  • Civil Procedure Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Michael Gaiko Ngure & another Vs Peter Njoroge Kinyanjui [2022] eKLR
  • Charles Ogejo Ochieng Vs Geoffrey Okumu (1995) eKLR
  • Okorie & others Vs Udom & Others (1960) 5 FSC 16
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case