[2011] KEHC 203 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case as the documents presented did not prove ownership of the suit plots, nor was there evidence that the 1st defendant had trespassed or commenced construction on the applicant's plots. The court noted the absence of a survey map or report to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 203 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alfred Kariuki Kihu; Respondent: Stanley Charles Muchiri; Respondent: Embakasi Charles Michiri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 357 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Trespass, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfred Kariuki Kihu
Applicant
Stanley Charles Muchiri
Respondent
Embakasi Charles Michiri
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an interim injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case as the documents presented did not prove ownership of the suit plots, nor was there evidence that the 1st defendant had trespassed or commenced construction on the applicant's plots. The court noted the absence of a survey map or report to identify the suit premises, and the plot numbers in the applicant's documents did not match those in the respondent's possession. As such, the court could not ascertain the location or ownership of the disputed plots and determined that granting an injunction would be futile. The matter was directed to proceed to full hearing for proper determination based on evidence.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 19th July 2011 is disallowed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ELC. NO. 357 OF 2011
ALFRED KARIUKI KIHU…………..............................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
STANLEY CHARLES MUCHIRI……...............................……….…1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
EMBAKASI CHARLES MICHIRI …………...................................... 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 19th July 2011 seeks for interim orders of injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with plots nos L75(C886) and L76(C891) (hereinafter called suit premises) pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
The application is based on the grounds that through an agreement of sale, entered between the applicant and one Alice Wanjiku Ndirangu on 19th December, 1990, the applicant purchased a share in the 2nd defendant’s company. The transfer of shares was duly stamped and it transferred to the applicant an interest in the suit premises. The applicant thus became a share holder and the plots were duly allotted to him. In October 1991 he was issued with a share certificate by the 2nd defendant which was proof of ownership.
The plaintiff complains that about 11th July 2011, the 1st defendant trespassed into the suit premises and started developing it while claiming
ownership. The matter was reported to the 2nd defendant and also the police station. According to the applicant, unless an order of injunction is issued, he will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated for the damages.
On the part of the 1st respondent, the application was opposed. firstly, counsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that the dispute herein should have been referred to the company that issued the subject plots. The 1st respondent was issued with plot numbers V 227 and V 228and not the plots that the applicant is complaining about. Although the plaintiff claims to have purchased the plots from Alice Wanjiku, the so called Sale Agreement does not indicate the plot numbers. Even the share certificate does not indicate the plot numbers.
The 1st defendant has been in possession of his plots from 1999. This is a matter that cannot be determined without the court adducing evidence from the 2nd defendant and a surveyor who can identify the portions of land referred to by the plaintiff as those plots are were different from the plaintiff’s plots.
This application seeks for interim order of injunction, the principles to guide the court on whether or not to grant an interim order of injunction are well known. The plaintiff has to establish a prima facie case with a probability of sucurs. Secondly the plaintiff has to establish that he will suffer irreparable harm which cannot be compensated for in damages, and if in doubt, the court is supposed to determine the matter on a balance of probabilities.
In the case ofMRAO LTD V. FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA LTD & 2 OTHERS{2003} KLR 125the court of appeal explained what constitutes a prima facie case in the following terms:
“A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a “genuine and arguable case.” It is a case which, on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.”
Applying the above principles to the present case, it is not clear to me what plots constitutes the suit premises and who is the owner of those plots. The documents adduced in evidence to support the plaintiff’s case do not prove that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit plots. More importantly, there is no evidence to show that the 1st defendant has trespassed and started construction on the plaintiff’s plots. There is no survey map or report to identity the plaintiff’s plots, granted that the plots have no formal titles.
On the other hand the 1st defendant has denied having trespassed on the plaintiff’s suit land and claims that he took possession of his plots in 1999 and they bear different plot numbers.
On the face of it, there is no way this court can establish the location of the suit premises visa vis the 1st defendant’s claim that he is occupying different plots. The court cannot grant orders in vain.
For the aforesaid reasons I direct this matter should proceed to full hearing. Parties should comply with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and set the matter down for hearing. The application dated 19th July 2011 is disallowed but costs shall be in the cause.
Ruling read and signed on the 14th Day of November, 2011.
M. K. KOOME
JUDGE