[2017] KEELC 3515 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3515 (KLR)

The court found that both applications—the plaintiffs' for interlocutory injunction and inhibition, and the defendants' for discharge of interim orders—were withdrawn by consent of the parties, except for the order of inhibition. The court determined that it was just and necessary to preserve the suit land parcels...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3515 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Agnes Muthoni Nyaga; Plaintiff: Evriter Karimi Nkari; Plaintiff: Hellen Nkatha Nkari; Plaintiff: Christine Kanjiru Nkari; Defendant: Alice C. Alexander; Defendant: Albert Mugendi Nkari; Defendant: Frankline Kirimi Nkari; Defendant: Peter Murimi; Defendant: Joline Muthoni Gachunki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 62 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications withdrawn by consent except for inhibition order; inhibition to remain in force pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Family Land Disputes, Injunctions, Inhibition Orders, Succession and Inheritance
Source Language
en
Land and Property Family Land Disputes Injunctions Inhibition Orders Succession and Inheritance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agnes Muthoni Nyaga

Plaintiff

Evriter Karimi Nkari

Plaintiff

Hellen Nkatha Nkari

Plaintiff

Christine Kanjiru Nkari

Plaintiff

Alice C. Alexander

Defendant

Albert Mugendi Nkari

Defendant

Frankline Kirimi Nkari

Defendant

Peter Murimi

Defendant

Joline Muthoni Gachunki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit land parcels pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether an inhibition order should be maintained over the suit land parcels to preserve the subject matter.
  3. 3 Whether the interim orders previously issued should be discharged, varied, or set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both applications—the plaintiffs' for interlocutory injunction and inhibition, and the defendants' for discharge of interim orders—were withdrawn by consent of the parties, except for the order of inhibition. The court determined that it was just and necessary to preserve the suit land parcels by maintaining the inhibition order until the main suit is heard and determined. This would ensure that the subject matter of the dispute is not altered to the detriment of any party, particularly given the allegations of fraudulent subdivision and sale. The court further directed compliance with pre-trial procedures and set a hearing date for the main suit, emphasizing the need...

Court Disposition

Applications withdrawn by consent except for inhibition order; inhibition to remain in force pending hearing and determination of the suit.

Orders

  • An inhibition is placed against Land Parcel Nos. Karingani/Ndagani/8994, 8995 and 8996 until the suit is heard and determined.
  • All parties to comply with Order 11, Civil Procedure Rules, within 30 days.