[2023] KEELC 17152 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17152 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants, as registered owners of the suit property, had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success. The evidence showed that the access road had already been opened following due process, and the respondents' intended action to reopen or realign the road was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17152 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Richard Onunga Adero; Applicant: Samson Okoth Onunga; Respondent: Kisumu County Director of Surveys; Respondent: Kisumu County Land Registrar; Respondent: Dago Sub-Location Ass. Chief; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
E Asati
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Right to Property, Land Access Disputes, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Right to Property Land Access Disputes Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Onunga Adero

Applicant

Samson Okoth Onunga

Applicant

Kisumu County Director of Surveys

Respondent

Kisumu County Land Registrar

Respondent

Dago Sub-Location Ass. Chief

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution is threatened by the respondents' intended actions.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as registered owners of the suit property, had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success. The evidence showed that the access road had already been opened following due process, and the respondents' intended action to reopen or realign the road was not justified on the material before the court. The applicants' right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution was threatened by the respondents' actions, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, as failure to grant the injunction would result in denial of free enjoyment of their land. The application was unopposed, and the facts in the affidavits were...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents by themselves, their agents or their officers or any person acting under their authority from purporting to peg out the alignments of the section of the access road that serves the Plaintiffs land parcel number...
  • Costs to the applicants.