[2014] KEHC 6704 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 6704 (KLR)

The court found that, given the conflicting claims regarding occupation and ownership of the four acres in question, and the existence of sale agreements annexed by the applicant, it was appropriate to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. The applicant's claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 6704 (KLR)
Parties
Objector: Adrane Musonye Shibisi; Petitioner: Charles Malanga Chivuli
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 888 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application (injunction)
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted; status quo to be maintained
Judges
SJ Chitembwe
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Succession Disputes, Beneficiary Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Status Quo Orders Succession Disputes Beneficiary Rights

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrane Musonye Shibisi

Objector

Charles Malanga Chivuli

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Interlocutory Application (injunction)

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining the petitioner and other beneficiaries from dealing with four acres out of plot number N/KABRAS/MALAVA/1261 pending determination of the succession cause.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie claim to the four acres allegedly purchased from the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the conflicting claims regarding occupation and ownership of the four acres in question, and the existence of sale agreements annexed by the applicant, it was appropriate to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the succession cause. The applicant's claim required proof through oral evidence, and it was not possible at this interlocutory stage to conclusively determine possession or ownership. Therefore, the court granted the injunction as prayed, restraining the petitioner and other beneficiaries from dealing with the disputed four acres, but directed that the applicant should not put up any new structures on the land until the claim...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted; status quo to be maintained

Orders

  • The application dated 8/5/2013 is granted as prayed.
  • The applicant is restrained from putting up any new structures on the suit land until determination of his claim.