[2021] KEELC 4094 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the orders sought by the 3rd defendant/applicant because the surveyor's report, which formed the basis of the application, had not yet been formally produced in evidence by the appropriate witness. The court held that it would be unsafe to issue injunctive orders or adopt the report as judgment without it being properly introduced and tested in court. The absence of opposition from the plaintiff did not cure this evidentiary deficiency. The court emphasized the need for the parties to expedite the hearing of the main suit, directing that a priority hearing date be set and that the County Surveyor be summoned to produce the report as evidence. Only after such...
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 4094 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Albert Boyo Kirui; Defendant: Benjamin Kiprotich A. Kigen; Defendant: Kipkurui Cherutich; Defendant: Erick Kiptum Kimosop; Defendant: The County Land Registrar, Trans-Nzoia; Defendant: The County Surveyor, Trans-Nzoia; Defendant: The Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 3 March 2021
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 61 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Boundary Disputes, Survey Reports, Encroachment, Adoption of Evidence
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Albert Boyo Kirui
Plaintiff
Benjamin Kiprotich A. Kigen
Defendant
Kipkurui Cherutich
Defendant
Erick Kiptum Kimosop
Defendant
The County Land Registrar, Trans-Nzoia
Defendant
The County Surveyor, Trans-Nzoia
Defendant
The Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an interim injunction should issue restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the 3rd defendant's land pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the report of the County Surveyor dated 5/7/2019 should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the orders sought by the 3rd defendant/applicant because the surveyor's report, which formed the basis of the application, had not yet been formally produced in evidence by the appropriate witness. The court held that it would be unsafe to issue injunctive orders or adopt the report as judgment without it being properly introduced and tested in court. The absence of opposition from the plaintiff did not cure this evidentiary deficiency. The court emphasized the need for the parties to expedite the hearing of the main suit, directing that a priority hearing date be set and that the County Surveyor be summoned to produce the report as evidence. Only after such...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 20/1/2021 is rejected.
- A priority hearing date for the main suit is set for 27/4/2021.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment