[2025] KEELC 207 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 207 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant's fence, as confirmed by the surveyor's report, encroached on the Plaintiffs' parcels Kisumu/Tonde/91 and Kisumu/Tonde/92, constituting interference in violation of the injunction order issued on 6th November 2023. While the court acknowledged it had not validated the Plaintiffs' titles, it held that the Defendant had failed to establish a superior interest or right to the suit properties and was therefore bound by the injunction. The court declined to punish the Defendant for contempt at this stage, instead granting the Defendant a final opportunity to comply by removing the encroaching fence within 60 days, failing which the Plaintiffs could remove it...

Citation
[2025] KEELC 207 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Harun Omom Okal Akeyo; Plaintiff: David Okal Omom; Defendant: Lake Basin Development Authority
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 3 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Enforcement and Contempt
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application partially allowed; enforcement orders granted; contempt not established at this stage.
Judges
SO Okong'o
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Contempt of Court, Land Ownership Disputes, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Contempt of Court Land Ownership Disputes Enforcement of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harun Omom Okal Akeyo

Plaintiff

David Okal Omom

Plaintiff

Lake Basin Development Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Enforcement and Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was in contempt of the court order restraining interference with the suit properties.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's fence encroached on the Plaintiffs' parcels of land as per the survey report.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to enforcement orders, including removal of the fence and reimbursement of survey costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant's fence, as confirmed by the surveyor's report, encroached on the Plaintiffs' parcels Kisumu/Tonde/91 and Kisumu/Tonde/92, constituting interference in violation of the injunction order issued on 6th November 2023. While the court acknowledged it had not validated the Plaintiffs' titles, it held that the Defendant had failed to establish a superior interest or right to the suit properties and was therefore bound by the injunction. The court declined to punish the Defendant for contempt at this stage, instead granting the Defendant a final opportunity to comply by removing the encroaching fence within 60 days, failing which the Plaintiffs could remove it...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application partially allowed; enforcement orders granted; contempt not established at this stage.

Orders

  • The Defendant shall within 60 days from the date hereof remove its existing fence around Kisumu/Tonde/91 and Kisumu/Tonde/92.
  • If the said fence is not removed by the Defendant within 60 days, the Plaintiffs shall be at liberty to remove the same at the cost of the Defendant, with costs assessed and certified by the Deputy Registrar and payable within 30 days of certification.