[ad_1]
Gavel. PHOTO| PHOTOSFORCLASS
A widow and her son in Naivasha, recognized as Ruth Muthoni Iganjo and Dickson Iganjo, have been ordered to vacate two properties comprising roughly 230 acres in a court docket ruling.
The dispute arose when the widow and her son claimed that the land belonged to her late husband.
The authorized battle concerned two households, one representing the late chief spymaster James Kanyotu and the opposite representing the late Gitonga Mwangi Muriithi, each of whom have been being sued by Muthoni and her son over the disputed properties in Naivasha.
Muthoni’s declare was primarily based on the assertion that on July 7, 2014, her late husband, along with the late James Kanyotu and the late Mwangi Stephen Muriithi, have been administrators of Kamuta Restricted.
This firm was integrated round December 4, 1976, with every director holding one share.
Of their protection, represented by lawyer Wangeci Wahome Akedi, the defendants refuted the declare that Mr Mutahi was a director or shareholder of Kamuta Restricted.
They clarified that the shareholders have been Kanyotu and Muriithi, asserting that Mutahi served as Kanyotu’s worker chargeable for managing his farm in Olbanata.
Additionally learn: Proprietor of the trending mansion constructed on high of an residence speaks
The late Mutahi, Kanyotu, and Muriithi handed away in 2000, 2008, and 2018, respectively.
Nevertheless, in a judgment delivered on September 21 in Kajiado Courtroom, Justice L Komingoi dismissed their utility and dominated that Muthoni should pay the household of Kanyotu Sh1 million for trespassing on their land.
The decide declared, “The seventh Defendant is the unique proprietor of the 2 swimsuit properties. It has the proper to utilise [the land], and it derives no earnings from the swimsuit properties. I discover that the plaintiffs are in unlawful occupation of the seventh defendant’s property.”
The court docket awarded Ksh1,000,000 as common damages for trespass and upheld Kamuta Restricted’s counterclaim. It additionally issued a everlasting injunction restraining the plaintiffs from trespassing or interfering with the seventh Defendant’s properties.
Concerning Kamuta Restricted’s counterclaim, the court docket said that it was not in dispute that the plaintiff’s household is in occupation of the swimsuit properties.
Additional, the court docket famous that there was proof that the land is used for large-scale farming of horticultural crops.
The land at present hosts accommodations being run by plaintiffs on the primary home and cottages constructed.
Additionally learn: Sakaja to demolish buildings standing on grabbed land
It was revealed that there was a catering institution referred to as Sakata from which the plaintiffs acquire hire. The property can also be used as a touchdown bay for boats utilized in fishing and vacationers visiting Lake Naivasha.
“It’s in proof that the plaintiffs have leased out parts of the properties to 3rd events, and so they acquire hire. The occupation is with out the consent of the seventh defendant.”
The decide additionally dominated that an order of everlasting injunction be issued restraining the plaintiffs, their brokers, or staff from trespassing, interfering, claiming, or dealing in any manner with the seventh defendant properties, particularly LR. NO.398/7 and LR. NO.398/8 Naivasha.
“That the Plaintiffs, their servants, and or brokers are hereby directed to vacate the swimsuit properties, particularly LR. NO.398/7 and LR NO.398/8 inside 100 and twenty (120) days from the date of this judgment. In default, the seventh defendant be at liberty to make use of lawful means to evict them”, the decide dominated.
The court docket ordered the plaintiffs to vacate the properties inside 120 days from the date of the judgment, with the Naivasha Police Station OCS tasked with guaranteeing compliance.
Moreover, the widow was instructed to supply a complete account of the earnings generated from the properties [LR. NO.398/7 and LR NO.398/8 Naivasha] throughout their occupation and hand over that earnings to Kamuta Farm Restricted.
Additionally learn: Parklands residents threaten to sue Nema over unlawful development initiatives
[ad_2]
