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

BROMINE INVESTMENTS LTD v KALUME KARISA MBITHA & Another [2012] KEHC 69 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 69 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
69
Citation
[2012] KEHC 69 (KLR)
Decided
11 December 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeReal Property DisputePostureAppeal from the original trial outcomeCoramJ. W. MWERA
Holding

The plaintiff's suit succeeds with costs, and the defendants' counter-claim is dismissed with costs. The defendants have no right to remain on the suit premises or use the same. They should consider pulling down the structures they erected there and remove the debris themselves or the plaintiff does so at their expense after the next forty-five (45) days.

Facts

The plaintiff, Bromine Investments Ltd., claimed ownership and possession of a plot of land known as KILIFI/MTONDIA/61, measuring 14 acres. The defendants, Kalume Karisa Mbitha and Nancy Khanjila Kalume, claimed they had purchased the land from Charo Randu Nzai and were the lawful owners. The plaintiff alleged the defendants trespassed and engaged in illegal activities on the land.

Issues

  1. Ownership of the land
  2. Defendants' claim of lawful purchase

Reasoning

The court found that the plaintiff had valid title to the land and that the defendants had no legal claim to it. The plaintiff's claim was supported by evidence of the land's history and the defendants' lack of proper documentation.

Outcome

Appeal upheld, original trial outcome affirmed

Orders

  • Defendants to vacate the land and remove structures within 45 days
  • Defendants to bear the costs of removal

Remedies

  • Removal of structures and debris by defendants or plaintiff at defendants' expense
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