Jane Wambui Ngeru & another v Dennis Njagi & 2 others Nairobi City County (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Justice S. Okong’o
Judgment Date
September 24, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Jane Wambui Ngeru & another v Dennis Njagi & 2 others; Nairobi City County [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and rulings.

Case Brief: Jane Wambui Ngeru & another v Dennis Njagi & 2 others (All sued as residents of BuruBuru Phase V on their own behalf and on behalf of all other residents); Nairobi City County (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Jane Wambui Ngeru & Scholastica Waithera Kamau v. Dennis Njagi & Others
- Case Number: ELC Suit No. 1031 of 2013
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 24th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Justice S. Okong’o
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving the following central legal issues:
- Whether the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the parcel of land known as Nairobi/Block 79/787.
- Whether the defendants are trespassers on the said property.
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in their plaint.
- Who should bear the costs of the suit?

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Jane Wambui Ngeru and Scholastica Waithera Kamau, claimed to be the registered proprietors of the land known as Nairobi/Block 79/787, which they purchased from Olerai Investment Limited for Kshs. 4,200,000/- for the purpose of constructing a church and a nursery school. The plaintiffs alleged that upon acquiring the property, they discovered it had been filled with soil and faced obstruction from the defendants, who claimed ownership of the land. Despite obtaining approval from the City Council of Nairobi to develop the property, the defendants entered the land and began leveling it for their own use, thus preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their rights.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiffs initiated their suit on 27th August 2013, which was amended on 20th January 2015. The defendants, who were residents of the area, did not file any defenses or responses to the claims. The case was heard on 24th September 2019, where the plaintiffs presented their evidence, but the defendants failed to appear. The court directed written submissions, which the plaintiffs filed, while the defendants did not respond.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referred to the Registered Land Act, Chapter 300 of the Laws of Kenya (now repealed), particularly Sections 27 and 28, which affirm that registration as a proprietor confers absolute ownership and rights over the land.
- Case Law: The court cited *Wamwea v Catholic Diocese of Muranga Registered Trustees* [2003] KLR 389, which established that a registered owner is entitled to possession and occupation of their land. Additionally, *Gitwany Investments Limited v Tajmal Limited & 3 others* [2006] eKLR defined trespass as any intrusion without justifiable cause.
- Application: The court found that the plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence of their ownership of the property and that the defendants had no legal justification for their actions, thus constituting trespass. The plaintiffs’ claim for relief was supported by their established ownership and the defendants' lack of response or evidence.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring their right to exclusive possession of the property and recognizing the defendants as trespassers. The court issued permanent injunctions against the defendants and awarded the plaintiffs Kshs. 50,000/- in nominal damages for trespass, along with costs of the suit.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions as the defendants did not participate in the proceedings, and the judgment was delivered based solely on the plaintiffs' evidence.

8. Summary:
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' ownership of Nairobi/Block 79/787 and ruled that the defendants were trespassers. The decision underscores the importance of legal ownership rights and the protection afforded to property owners against unlawful intrusion. The ruling also highlights the necessity for defendants to respond substantively in legal disputes to avoid adverse judgments.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Jane-Wambui-Ngeru--another-v-Dennis-Njagi--2-others-Nairobi-City-County-Interested-Party-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1174_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries