Lilian Wanjiru Njoroge v Joreth Limited & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
L. Komingoi
Judgment Date
September 24, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Lilian Wanjiru Njoroge v Joreth Limited & another [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and outcomes that shape the judgment.

Case Brief: Lilian Wanjiru Njoroge v Joreth Limited & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Lilian Wanjiru Njoroge v. Joreth Limited & Peter Gakure Muriuki
- Case Number: ELC NO. 689 OF 2011
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: September 24, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): L. Komingoi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court is tasked with resolving several legal issues:
- Whether the suit property was registered in the name of the 1st defendant (Joreth Limited).
- Whether the 1st defendant sold part of its land to Thome Farmers No.5 Limited.
- Whether the plaintiff has proven her case on a balance of probabilities.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.
- Who should bear the costs of the suit.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Lilian Wanjiru Njoroge, claims ownership of LR No. 13330/169, having purchased it from Anthony Kariuki Githendu, who previously acquired it from Walter Mbugua Wairuiko in 2000. The plaintiff asserts that she has made payments for the processing of her title through the firm of M/S Kimani Kahiro Advocates, which was acting for the 1st defendant, Joreth Limited. The 2nd defendant, Peter Gakure Muriuki, claims to have purchased the same property from Joreth Limited and has constructed a house there. The conflict arises from the registration and ownership of the suit property, which the plaintiff alleges was fraudulently transferred to the 2nd defendant.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiff filed a plaint on December 5, 2011, later amended on October 4, 2013, seeking various reliefs including a permanent injunction, a declaration of fraudulent transfer, and an eviction order against the 2nd defendant. The defendants filed their statements of defense, and the matter proceeded to trial, where witnesses were called, and evidence was presented. The court allowed the parties to submit written arguments, which culminated in the judgment delivered on September 24, 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the relevant laws regarding land ownership, the doctrine of lis pendens, and the burden of proof in civil cases, particularly regarding claims of fraud.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of *Vijay Morjaria vs Nansingh Madhusingh Darbar & Another [2000] eKLR*, emphasizing that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proven. Additionally, the case of *Carol Silcock vs Kassim Sharrif Mohamed [2013] eKLR* was cited regarding the doctrine of lis pendens, which mandates that the status quo be maintained during ongoing litigation.
- Application: The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that she had a valid title to LR No. 13330/169. It noted that while the 1st defendant was the registered owner, there was no evidence of a sale to Thome Farmers No.5 Limited. The plaintiff's payments were acknowledged but deemed insufficient to confer ownership. The court also found that the transfer to the 2nd defendant, although occurring during the pendency of the suit, did not warrant cancellation due to the lack of proof of collusion or fraud.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the plaintiff, concluding that she did not prove her case on a balance of probabilities and was therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought. The suit was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, affirming the 1st defendant's ownership of the suit property and the validity of the 2nd defendant's title. The case underscores the importance of clear evidence in property disputes and the necessity of fulfilling financial obligations to establish ownership rights. The ruling serves as a significant reference for future cases involving land ownership, fraudulent transfers, and the implications of the doctrine of lis pendens in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Lilian-Wanjiru-Njoroge-v-Joreth-Limited--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1354_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries